Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STROMNESS (VEHICLE FERRY TERMINAL) PIER ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Stromness (Vehicle Ferry Terminal) Pier etc.; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Alkali Inspectorate

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the work of the Alkali Inspectorate; and what steps he is taking to improve it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The answer to the first part is Yes, Sir, and to the second that my right hon. Friend will take whatever steps are required as, when and if they are needed.

Mr. Meacher: Does the Minister agree that with only a dozen prosecutions in the last 50 years, with fines averaging only £60, the bite of the Alkali Inspectorate is derisory and is derided by industry? Therefore, will the Minister repeal the ten-year grace law, publicise the standards required of local manufacturers, and substantially increase the numbers of the Inspectorate? If that fails, will he ensure that industrial pollution is put under the control of local authorities?

Mr. Speed: I do not accept most of the propositions made by the hon. Member. The ten-year grace law exists only in the imagination of the article in the Observer. The Inspectorate has been increased by 40 per cent. My right hon. Friend is having discussions with industry with a view to giving the matter greater publicity.

Mr. More: Recollecting the great assistance recently given by my hon. Friend's ministerial colleague in the matter of Rock Metal Works, Jackfield, in my constituency, and recognising the great frustrations we both experienced, is not the time ripe for a complete recasting of the legislation about alkalis, at present based on an Act of Parliament which is 66 years old?

Mr. Speed: We have to bear in mind the substantial achievements which have been produced by the Alkali Inspectorate. Obviously we are looking at these matters the whole time. Looking at what has been achieved, which is outlined in the annual reports which I hope hon. Members will read fully as and when they come out, it will be seen as a success story.

Kennet and Avon Canal

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the public interest in the restoration of the Kennet and Avon Canal, why he will not now make a grant to the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust directly or through the British Waterways Board, to enable the canal to be restored throughout its length.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for 17th May.—[Vol. 837, c. 101.]

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory answer? Is he aware that pious hopes will not restore the canal? Is he further aware that many people in my constituency, particularly young people, are working very hard in trying to restore this canal by voluntary means? It needs £500,000 spent on it to bring it up to a good amenity for this part of England. Will he at least match the £50,000 which has been offered by a private individual to restore this canal?

Mr. Peyton: First, I applaud the voluntary work that is being done.
Secondly, I hope that the co-operation between the board, the local authorities and private individuals who wish this project well, in fact, will continue. I have not the money with me now. I cannot offer to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's pious hopes this afternoon.

Mr. McLaren: Would not the restoration of this lovely canal lead to an improvement of the environment, which is what my right hon. Friend's Department is all about? Will he tell us what practical steps he will take to bring this about.

Mr. Peyton: We all wish to see improvements in the environment, but not necessarily at the Government's expense. I should remind my hon. Friend that the new water policies announced by the Government should and will have the effect of more money being allocated to the canals.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that this most imaginative scheme to extend both the amenity and recreation of this canal should receive national recognition by way of financial support? The Sports Council is spending a lot on other schemes. It may be a case for the local authorities or the Government. Will the Minister undertake to see whether some financial encouragement can be given to this scheme?

Mr. Peyton: It would be wrong for me to hold out any hopes this afternoon. The Government's good will towards the waterways has been made perfectly clear. As I said, the adoption of the Government's new policies will mean more money being available.

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Southampton Ice Rink

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in relation to his powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts concerning the proposed closure of Southampton ice rink; and what replies he has sent.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Several letters and telegrams have been received against the closure, and objecting to the current application to build houses and flats on the site. The only powers my right hon. Friend has under the Town and Country Planning Act relate to the planning application, not directly to the closure. He does not consider that the issues raised justify his taking the decision on the planning application out of the hands of the local planning authority.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many top class young skaters have been trained at Southampton ice rink and that if it closes the nearest alternatives will be Streatham or Richmond? Does he agree that it is important that cities such as Southampton should retain as many of their leisure facilities as possible?

Mr. Page: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points, but the planning application does not seem to raise other than local issues of a kind which would not justify my right hon. Friend interfering with the local authority's decision.

Mr. James Hill: As the Southampton ice rink is in my constituency, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the local Southern Evening Echo published a statement by the Rank Organisation in which it said that it had no immediate plans for closing this ice rink and that it is a well-used local amenity?

Mr. Page: I take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has studied the proposal submitted to him by the local government associations and the Greater London Council for the imposition of an additional local petrol tax; and whether he will make a statement on his attitude to this proposal.

Mr. Graham Page: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 24th May, 1972, to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell).—[Vol. 837, c. 395.]

Mr. Redmond: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that half reply, may I ask him to take into account that a tax of this nature at this time and at the level suggested, 5p per gallon, would be wildly inflationary?

Mr. Page: This is being taken into account in the proposals which we are considering for a review of local government finance.

Land Prices

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis land will be priced if released for house building purposes under his recent proposals; and if he will consider its being purchased at its previous use value, for example, as agricultural land, in order to keep down house prices.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. The price paid for land acquired by local authorities is based on market value. They have a duty to obtain the best price when they dispose of it unless particular circumstances justify disposal for less.

Mr. Allaun: That is the reply I expected. Does the Minister believe it is just for landowners to make fortunes simply because local authorities have provided the roads, the sewers, the lighting, the water and, above all, the permission to build houses on the land?

Mr. Page: If the land were purchased at less than market value no owner would sell without compulsion, and there would be one price for land privately acquired and another for public transactions.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to stabilise or bring down the price of land is by making enough land available for development purposes? The Government's purpose should be to see how this can be done without going against the planning policies of successive Governments. The only way to do this is by having an acre-by-acre survey of land use throughout the kingdom.

Mr. Page: I do not think we need go to that extent, but what my hon. Friend said is in fact the Government's policy.

Mr. John Silkin: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming a Member of the Privy Council and,

secondly, commiserate with him on having to answer this question. Is the Minister aware that whereas under the Labour Government the price of land fell by 4 per cent., under this Government in two years it has risen by 53 per cent.? Does he therefore agree that a far more radical solution to the problem is necessary than that which he envisages?

Mr. Page: No. In the last year of the Labour Government land prices rose by 24 per cent. compared with 23 per cent. in 1971. My right hon. Friend put before the House a number of proposals which will set in motion a process for reducing the price of land by bringing forward a greater supply.

Liverpool and Leeds Canal (Fatalities)

Mr. Simon Mahon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have lost their lives since the end of the 1939–45 war or vesting day in the Liverpool and Leeds Canal on the stretches between Liverpool, Lockfields, and Bootle, including Aintree, Netherton, Crosby and Sefton; how many of these were infants and schoolchildren; and, in view of the demand by the parents of children in these areas for the immediate closing of this waterway, what action he proposes to take.

Mr. John Peyton: Twenty-nine children lost their lives in these stretches of canal between 1955 and 1968. There has since been no loss until last April when a boy was drowned. The future of this "remainder" length of canal is a matter for the British Waterways Board. A Study Group it has set up with the local authorities concerned is expected to report shortly.

Mr. Mahon: Is it not a disastrous figure, in any terms, that 30 children should lose their lives in the stretch of one canal? Is the Minister aware that thousands of my constituents have signed a petition because they are sick of the repeated deaths in this canal and fed up with the prevarication of local authorities which do not seem to be aware of the stinking, horrible, foul-smelling canal in the midst of my constituency? Will he take action over this matter and tell British Waterways to take its finger out?

Mr. Peyton: I like to be a little careful about the instructions I give to


nationalised undertakings. I well recognise the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper concern in this matter, and I have no doubt that his forthright comments will be noted by both the local authorities concerned and the British Waterways Board.

Mr. Tilney: Is there the same loss of life in European cities which have as many canals as they have roads? Is it not possible to safeguard life and yet make the canals objects of beauty?

Mr. Peyton: I should like to make all canals objects of beauty. I think the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is sharply aware that it might be difficult in this case. I cannot hazard any opinions on the subject of European canals at the moment.

House Prices

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average quarterly increase in the price of houses built by local authorities in 1970, 1971 and 1972.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The quarterly rate of increase in tender prices for the construction of two-storey five-bed-space houses in England and Wales was about 2·6 per cent, in 1970 and, provision ally, 2·7 per cent, in the first three quarters of 1971; information for the final quarter of 1971 is not yet available. The average lag from tender approval to completion of a council house is about seven quarters.

Mr. Skinner: I hope the Minister has told the CBI, which has been interested in land use prices recently. Do not these figures show that it is economic madness to sell off the community's stock of council housing because, as each day goes by, it becomes dearer to replace those houses which are sold? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have a vested interest in council houses being sold from the economic point of view, because half the money that accrues from their sale will go to the Exchequer when the housing revenue account gets into surplus, as it will under the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill?

Mr. Amery: In the Government's view, it is the duty of local authorities to try

to meet the desire of council tenants who may wish to buy their own homes. We are not motivated by any consideration of any part of the surplus. It would be a small proportion which might accrue to the Exchequer. We are concerned with the provision of home ownership, for which there seems to be a strong desire.
Concerning the hon. Gentleman's reference to the CBI, I am glad to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I asked Mr. Campbell Adamson to come to see us yesterday. I think that at the end of our talk he was satisfied that any reduction in building society lending would not only be harmful to the building industry but would prevent people buying their own homes. An inevitable consequence of any delay in the implementation of the Housing Finance Bill would be to defer the provision of rate rebate and rent allowances to lower-paid workers, whose problems are uppermost in the present wage bargaining.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to halt the disastrous rise in house prices would be to increase the supply of houses? Will he therefore make every effort to make a great deal more building land available so that builders can get on with the job?

Mr. Amery: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the only way to overcome the present steep rise in prices is to make more houses available. The provision of land is one way, more building by the building industry is another, and more building of council houses by local authorities is yet another. The sale of council houses to sitting tenants is also not negligible, particularly as it is now much easier than it was previously for local authorities to build new council houses under the present system.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that the sale of council houses does not add one house to the total stock of housing available? If he is concerned to increase home ownership, why is he not readily approving the plans of Birmingham and 20 other local authorities to build houses for sale to young married people? Would he announce the complete removal of any such ban on these authorities?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the sale of a council house does not add one house to the total. Nor does it take one away. There is nothing to stop—indeed with the rising cost subsidy and the slum clearance subsidy proposals in the Housing Finance Bill, much to encourage—local authorities from building new council houses.
Nor is there any attempt by the present Government, as there was by the previous Government, to limit the capital programme of new council house building. Any obligations falling within the yardstick will be virtually automatically approved. The hon. Member is barking up the wrong tree.
On the question of the sale of council houses, as I tried to explain yesterday, we consider—as Lord Greenwood considered under the previous Administration—that the private developer is the best instrument for the provisions of houses for sale—

Mr. Heffer: Speech.

Mr. Amery: But nothing like the speech that the House had yesterday. I have equally made it clear that, with specialised types of building, such as old people's homes, or where the private industry is not prepared to come in, I have by no means set my face against building for sale.

M3, Winchester

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware of the danger to persons and vehicles of the juxtaposition at the end of the M3, Winchester section, of a blind hump in the road, a cafe, a filling station and a gap for crossing the central reservation between the two-carriage ways; when he is going to take steps to alter this state of affairs; and when he is going to erect adequate warning signs.

Mr. Speed: Yes. Work on an improvement scheme is expected to start in the autumn. In the meantime warning signs and a white hazard warning line on the carriageway are to be provided.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but I am afraid that it is not good enough. The problem is that there is a crossing on the central reservation which is totally blind for approach-

ing vehicles, which come down at 70 miles an hour—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for information or giving it?

Mr. Mitchell: My question is this: will my hon. Friend proceed to do something much more quickly than the autumn to move the crossing on the central reservation further south?

Mr. Speed: We are giving consideration to measures to reduce the dangers from turning traffic, which I think would meet my hon. Friend's point.

Axle Weights

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consultation he has now had with transport ministers of the Common Market regarding the proposed maximum permitted load per axle on lorries using British roads.

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to accept the decision of the European Economic Community Ministers of Transport on the axle weight and maximum overall weight of lorries as affecting the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peyton: Consultations on the EEC proposals specified in my Answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on 24th May have now been formally requested, but have not yet taken place.—[Vol. 837, c. 390.]

Mr. Orme: When these negotiations take place, will the right hon. Gentleman press strongly against the introduction of these juggernaut lorries on British roads? Already, in Holland, they can be up to 50 tons and in Italy 44 tons. In a small, thickly populated country like the United Kingdom, they would make life unbearable—as they do in Holland. In consequence, will the Minister undertake not to permit these lorries to operate on our roads?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to consult the Community at this stage. The proposal which they have put forward—it is only a proposal at the moment—is for 40 tons overall weight. I would personally rather see that slightly lower, but the hon. Gentleman must have in his mind the


fact that the dimensions will not be greatly increased. The vital issue from our point of view, however, is that the axle loadings should not be unconscionably raised, because that would involve considerable expenditure on strengthening roads and bridges and would carry with it the risk of damage to buildings. With the growing volume of heavy traffic, which plays a large part in our transport economy, it is essential that we move as quickly as we can, with order, towards a policy of restricted routes.

Mr. Jay: But are not these proposals totally unsuitable for British conditions and damaging to British interests? Why can the Minister not say plainly that he will in no circumstances accept them?

Mr. Peyton: I do not like to be all that dogmatic at this stage. I have tried, in a calm and patient way, to make the views of the British Government well known on this subject. I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman my undertaking that I shall continue to do that.

Mr. Fell: Will my right hon. Friend take some heart from the fact that next time he argues this matter with Ministers of the Common Market and with the Commission, he can tell them that not only Ministers but the British Parliament feel strongly about this? Will he please tell them in no uncertain terms what he has told the House today?

Mr. Peyton: I have a confession to make. I went so far as to call in aid the views of the British Parliament on the earlier occasion. I ventured to suggest that I was under heavy pressure in Parliament and that I was not a robust enough person to stand up to it.

Mr. Mulley: I am sure that the Minister is aware that not only Parliament but wide sections of opinion outside view this matter with great concern, particularly, as he said, the problems of the axle weight and the fact that our road system is not as well developed as those of many other member countries of the Community. Although we obviously will not press him now for an assurance, will he make the proposals available so that we can study them? Will he also make it clear that this is a matter to which the House and the country attach great importance?

Mr. Peyton: I will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's point about making the proposals clear, in so far as they are not already clear. I am very conscious of the strength of views held in this House and by the public. Of course, the new proposals will not come into force until 1980 in any event, by which time our roads system—particularly the coupling up of the ports and the motorways—will be more advanced.

Port Operations

Mr. Roger White: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is proposing to take to improve the rationalisation of port operations.

Mr. Peyton: This is a matter primarily for port authorities. The National Ports Council is initiating discussions on possible improvements.

Mr. White: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, in the context of our entry into the EEC, modern methods of cargo handling can be reconciled with the human problems involved?

Mr. Peyton: I do not know that our entry into the EEC is particularly relevant to the problem, but undoubtedly modern methods of cargo handling have caused a considerable loss of job opportunities in the ports, which raises, I agree, a serious human problem.

Mr. Prescott: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he cannot rely on the National Industrial Relations Court to solve the real human problems involved in the technical changes in the docks? In view of the size of the problem, will the Government not recognise that the policy being pursued is allowing many small ports to take a great deal of work at the expense of highly concentrated docks industries such as my constituency area?

Mr. Peyton: I wonder whether that sort of contribution is constructive to relieving the undoubted pressures that exist. The hon. Member has to bear in mind that one of the difficulties of our ports today is their very high costs. That drives traffic away into the smaller undertakings of which he complains.

British Rail (Surplus Land)

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage British Rail to redevelop their surplus land; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: The Board's policy is to develop its land in its own interest and in the interest of the economy in general. It is also well aware of the urgent need for more land for housing.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful for that reply, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Government stopped pretending that they were not responsible for the actions of nationalised concerns? Would he agree that if all nationalised concerns were urged to release as much land as they could, it would have the effect of stabilising the price of building land?

Mr. Peyton: It would make a contribution. But it is the job of the British Railways Board to use its assets to the best advantage of the business it conducts. On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of the British Railways Board to the need to get rid of surplus land in the same way as other surplus assets, but particularly land, in view of the need for houses. The Board has been very co-operative about this.

Mr. Cant: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to encourage British Railways to participate in the special environmental assistance schemes which are doing so much to transform our cities? In particular, would he draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the terrible state of British Railways' facilities at the entrance to Stoke-on-Trent station?

Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that the Chairman of the British Railways Board will be the first to read the hon. Gentleman's observations in the morning.

Road Safety Standards

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure the harmonisation of road safety standards with those of the European Economic Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: There is increasing contact with the Commission on proposals affecting road safety.

Mr. Osborn: Are not the United States regulations on vehicle standards imposing intolerable conditions on American manufacturers? Will my right hon. Friend indicate the outcome of the international discussions at Transpo 72 in Washington and will he take steps to ensure, as far as possible, that neither British nor European manufacturers are asked to do the impossible in this part of the world?

Mr. Peyton: I have never asked anyone to do the impossible. I am merely invited to do it myself. Regarding the recent Transpo Exhibition in Washington, my hon. Friend has the advantage of me. He was there and I was not.

Heavy Vehicles (Limits)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he intends to continue to limit the loads and lengths of heavy and large vehicles in Great Britain; and if he intends to confine them to certain routes and ban them from certain streets and roads in towns and cities.

Mr. Peyton: Future weight and length limits will depend on the outcome of the consultations between the EEC and the acceding countries. The powers which local authorities have for route restriction will remain.

Mr. Chapman: Should not the criteria governing the length and the loads of lorries be based upon the design of roads? Whilst some roads, perhaps motorways and large trunk roads, may be capable of bearing these loads, many roads, particularly in our towns and cities, should have a much stricter limitation put on them.

Mr. Peyton: Yes, I agree. I have referred already this afternoon, and again in my Answer, to the powers which local authorities have to make restricted routes, and I am certain that we must move more and more into this area in order to keep heavy vehicles out of narrow streets and country lanes, which cannot even begin to accommodate them.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would not the Minister do far better to recognise that


there is no observable difference between vehicles of 32 tons and 40 tons gross weight?

Mr. William Hamilton: Eight tons exactly.

Mr. Huckfield: From where does the Minister get the figure of £200 million worth of additional damage to the roads from the increase in axle weight? In view of the recent Weights and Measures report about vehicle overloading, would not he do far better to recognise that we already have on our roads vehicles exceeding 40 tons gross weight?

Mr. Hamilton: Get them off.

Mr. Peyton: I have already referred today to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The discernible outward difference between an overall weight of 32 tons and one of 40 tons is very small. I am well aware of that, and I am glad to find that the hon. Gentleman has got things straight. Would he remind me of his other points?

Mr. Huckfield: From where does the right hon. Gentleman get the figure of £200 million worth of additional damage through increases in axle weights, and in view of the recent Weights and Measures report on overloading, would not he do far better to recognise that we already have vehicles on our roads exceeding 40 tons gross weight?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Overloading is a perennial problem. I am not suggesting that it has been satisfactorily solved. I am now looking into the problem. Others of my right hon. Friends have a responsibility here as well. I should very much like to see a great improvement in the question of enforcement, but I cannot hold out any immediate hopes.

Mr. Huckfield: What about the £200 million?

Mr. Peyton: This is a figure which has been examined very carefully.

Mr. Huckfield: It was quoted on the air.

Mr. Peyton: If he is unable to find a figure for himself, the hon. Gentleman always quickly comes to the conclusion that whoever else hit upon it must be crazy. That is not true. It has been

the subject of very careful study by experts in this country, in order to ascertain the consequences of having axle loads of 11 tons or 11½ tons. That is why I am so desperately anxious to avoid them.

Mr. Huckfield: They are on the roads already.

Motorway Signalling

Mr. Awdry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new national motorway signalling system will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Speed: The system is already in use on 173 miles; a further 311 miles should be completed by the end of this year. Work is being pressed forward as quickly as possible on other sections but it is too soon to say when it will be completed.

Mr. Awdry: Will the Minister confirm that this system, when it is completed, will cover the entire motorway network?

Mr. Speed: Yes, I can give that confirmation.

Mr. Molloy: Has there been any development of the idea of increasing police patrols on motorways to try to avoid some of the ghastly pile-ups we have been experiencing in recent months?

Mr. Speed: Essentially this is a matter for the local police authorities.

Palace of Westminster (Cleaning)

Sir J. Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if a date has yet been fixed for the cleaning of the outside of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I am at present considering the results of experiments designed to determine the best method of cleaning.

Sir J. Rodgers: Has an experiment been conducted in cleaning the Palace of Westminster by sand-blasting, and what would this mean? The House has a right to know.

Mr. Amery: Three experiments have been conducted, and hon. Members can see them in Black Rod's Garden. One involves what one might call the Nabarro method, of water spray and bristle


brushing.—[Laughter.] One is by dry grit blasting, and another is by wet grit blasting. I leave hon. Members to think of suitable comparisons for those.

Mr. David Steel: The whole House will be interested in the start which the Government have made to clean up the House of Lords. Will the Minister say which of the three methods has proved the most satisfactory? There seems to be a difference in the three panels that have been cleaned.

Mr. Amery: There are problems for the exterior by the method of cleaning and by the penetration of water or other substances into the building. I hope to report to the authorities of the two Houses by the end of the month or soon afterwards, though some further experimentation may be necessary.

Mr. Dalyell: What about the inside? Is the wet grit method good enough for penetrating the dust that accumulates around Lord Falkland and Sir William Harcourt, and many other luminaries?

Mr. Amery: We must consider very carefully which methods would be more efficacious for both the statues and the living.

Improvement Grants (Property Companies)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to obtain from local authorities details of property companies, as distinct from owners of individual properties, which have been taking advantage of improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. Local authorities are responsible for administering the grants scheme and I see no reason to interfere with their discretion in this matter.

Mr. Judd: In view of the unscrupulous profiteering which is taking place because of the shortage of land and property in other spheres, should not a development of this kind be resisted at all costs? Does not the Minister consider that he has any responsibility at a national level for ensuring that local authorities are particularly vigilant on this front?

Mr. Amery: There are two kinds of grant. The standard grants are auto-

matically available if applications are confirmed, and I see no reason to interfere with this in any circumstances. Discretionary grants are matters for the local authority, which is in a much better position to judge whether they involve a proper expenditure of public money.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is not the object of the exercise to improve dwelling conditions for the tenant and is not the concept of depriving a tenant of an improvement in order to exercise some curious kind of vengeance on the landlord an utterly petty concept?

Mr. Amery: I think my hon. Friend is quite right. It would be perfectly easy to restrict the flow of grants but this would simply be to condemn the lower income groups to live in a squalid ghetto.

Aldermen and Councillors

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present number of aldermen and councillors in Greater London and England and Wales, respectively; and how many it is proposed there will be for these areas under the new Local Government Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: Excluding the City of London there are some 1,960 councillors in Greater London and 325 aldermen. Of these, 100 are councillors and 16 are aldermen of the GLC. The Local Government Bill, as at present drafted, would not affect the existing arrangements.
In the rest of England and in Wales there are at present about 34,000 councillors and 4,000 aldermen. After reorganisation there might be about 22,000 councillors and there will be no aldermen. Figures for parish councillors are not available.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of those councillors who are due to be displaced have given very valuable service to the community and will the Government therefore try to provide new outlets so that this kind of voluntary service will not be lost to the community in the future?

Mr. Page: I hope the kind of voluntary service given by the aldermen in the past will not be lost in the future. But


we could not defend a reorganisation of local government which still contained unelected members of the councils.

M1 (Watford and Hemel Hempstead)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why, in view of the fact that the stretch of the M1 between Watford and Hemel Hempstead is to be made into a dual four-lane carriageway, he does not also propose to make the stretches north of Hemel Hempstead and south of Watford also into dual four-lane carriageways so as to make the whole stretch uniform.

Mr. Speed: Decisions on the future standard of the M1 north and south of the Watford-Hemel Hempstead section must await the outcome of studies into traffic flows on Ringway 3 and between Hemel Hempstead and Luton.

Mr. Tuck: Does the Minister realise that whether there is a change from a three-lane carriageway in each direction to two lanes in each direction as at present, or from a four-lane carriageway in each direction into three lanes each way, which is what the Government apparently envisage, there will be bottlenecks at each end and that these are sources of danger? Will the Undersecretary look at this whole situation again and ensure that it is uniform? It does not matter whether there are three lanes each way or four but they must be uniform throughout.

Mr. Speed: That is precisely one of the reasons why we are looking at the studies in the north. The present proposed four-lane section terminates at major junctions at each end where it is comparatively easy to change from three to four lanes.

Mr. Madel: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that basically we shall have to make do with the M1 because the Government have no plans for ripping up great sections of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire in order to build another motorway?

Mr. Speed: Certainly we have no plans for ripping up the country to build another motorway. We have undertaken studies into the difficulties between Hemel

Hempstead and Luton which will reveal in due course whether we need to undertake action on that particular section of the M1.

Circular 53/67 (Planning Requirements)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will withdraw paragraph 8 of circular 53/67, in view of the fact that, in certain circumstances, it encourages local authorities to require detailed plans and specifications of a proposed house instead of initially giving outline consent and requiring detailed plans thereafter.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. The advice in the circular refers only to development in conservation areas and to the formal stages. It should of course sometimes be possible in informal discussions for applicants to be told whether there are likely to be objections of principle.

Mr. King: Is not the effect of this to add further frustration and further cost? Is it not the case that the cost may well run into four figures for the developer? Is not the effect of this in its turn to add even more to the costs of a house which are already high enough? Is it not common sense to decide first whether a house can be built and thereafter to ask for detailed plans?

Mr. Page: The circular recognises only the special qualities of areas selected by local planning authorities as conservation areas, and in conservation areas the principle of the development of a site cannot be separated from questions of detailed design and appearance.

Factory and Offices (Thirsk)

Sir Robin Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the reasons for his direction on 10th May, 1972, to the North Riding County Council that they should refuse the out line application, dated 1st February, 1972, for the construction of a factory and offices on York Road, Thirsk, when the Thirsk by-pass is open to traffic.

Mr. Speed: If allowed, the application would have permitted construction to start before the bypass was open. The direction was issued to ensure this did not happen.

Sir Robin Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay involved in the submission of a fresh application will deny employment to many men in a town where unemployment is particularly high? Will he do everything he can, therefore, to expedite reconsideration of the proposal when it is submitted?

Mr. Speed: Yes, I can certainly give that confirmation. At this stage the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton(Sir Robin Turton) is good advice to take, but we are certainly anxious to see that there is no delay once road works are completed.

Road-widening Schemes (Brent)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the road-widening schemes in the London Borough of Brent for which he has now given his approval, together with the estimated starting and finishing dates.

ROAD WINDENING SCHEMES IN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT WHICH HAVE DEEN APPROVED


Scheme
Estimated



Start
Finish


A.406/A.4088—London North Circular Road Construction of Neasden Lane underpass.
July, 1971 (Actual)
Summer 1973


A.406—Realignment of bend at Dog Lane
Autumn 1972
Spring 1973


A.4005/A.4089—Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road junction improvement.
March, 1972 (Actual)
Autumn 1972

West Midland Metropolitan County (House Building)

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to designating growth areas for house building in the area to be covered by the new West Midland Metropolitan County.

Mr. Graham Page: The West Midlands Planning Authorities' Conference is considering comments on the Study Team's Regional Strategy and is discussing it with the Economic Planning Council and with Government Departments, with the aim of submitting their conclusions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn for his approval.

Mrs. Fisher: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not realise that the need for land for building in Birm-

Mr. Peyton: As the answer is in the form of a table, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister give special regard to two major schemes—the Harrow Road widening scheme and the Willesden High Road, where we have had a considerable number of problems in the last 12 years? Would he look at the whole question of Stonebridge redevelopment where we are very anxious to make definite moves in an area which previously consisted of very sub-standard housing, but where we have been delayed because of uncertainty about widening of the Harrow Road?

Mr. Peyton: As the hon. Member will be aware, the London Borough of Brent is the authority for all principal roads in the area. I have no doubt it will look at the matter. If the hon. Member thinks my Department can be helpful, I will do my best to assist.

Following is the information:

ingham is sufficiently urgent for him to take action? If Birmingham is to continue to demolish 4,000 slum dwellings a year and to rehouse 22,000 on its housing register, is it not imperative for the Minister to take urgent action to make land available?

Mr. Page: In 1971 a planning application by Birmingham was granted enabling the city to build more than 6,000 new houses at Kitwell, Walker's Heath, Frankley and Hawkesley on the borders of the city and north Worcestershire. Birmingham probably has sufficient land to build approaching 3,000 houses yearly for the next four to five years. But we have offered to consider this situation with Birmingham if the city will produce details of its requirements.

Mr. William Price: Is the Minister aware that we have reached the situation in Birmingham and the West Mid-


lands area in which a farmyard barn was recently sold for £22,000 and in which single building plots are costing £10,000 each? When will the five Ministers down there get off their fat backsides and do something about it?

Mr. Page: I understand that whereas under the previous council the 6,000 sites which were granted were to be split 50–50 between council building and private enterprise, the present council has announced that the land will be devoted wholly to council building.

New Towns (Private Consortia)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy relating to applications by private consortia to build new towns.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcomes private initiative towards the development of new communities; but each case must be considered on its merits.

Mr. Farr: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the initiative for the establishment of new towns should be left out of the hands of private consortia who seek generally to establish a new town in order to make a vast and undeserved profit? Has he borne in mind the case of those who live in an area where a new town is proposed? They are subject to repeated planning applications and live in a permanent state of fear and anxiety.

Mr. Page: I think the planning authorities can deal with this adequately under the normal law of planning applications and planning consents and I do not think we should reject the offer of private enterprise to increase the land available for housing and to produce a type of new town.

Mr. Heffer: Has the Minister looked at the new town of Milton Keynes and studied the houses that are being constructed there? They are of concrete and are very small, and I would not encourage anyone to live in them. Is it not clear that if there are to be new towns, they must be of a high standard, with decent housing providing large accommodation.

Mr. Page: That is a different question. I was asked about private consortia building new towns. Milton Keynes is not of that type. If the hon. Member cares to put down a detailed question on the matter, it will be answered.

Council House Sales (Denton)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the sale of council houses by the Denton, Lancashire, Urban District Council with special reference to increases in valuation of over 40 per cent. during the past year.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I would certainly regard the increase in this case as exceptional but I understand that there were special factors here. I have written to the hon. Member about this.

Mr. Marks: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that when a man is asked £3,900 for his house, when his neighbour bought an identical house for £2,700 a few weeks previously, the situation calls for special investigation? Is it not understandable that the council, in view of the valuations it has received, has now ceased to sell its council houses? Is it the Government's view that it is the duty of councils to sell houses under existing legislation?

Mr. Eyre: Differences of prices occur because tenants apply to buy at different times. Unfortunately, the differences were dramatically illustrated in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But his complaint about the administration should be taken up locally.

Stockholm Conference on the Environment

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking, as a result of the proposal by Dr. Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations, that an international governmental body should be established to put into effect decisions taken at the Stockholm Conference on the Environment.

Mr. Graham Page: The Government support the creation of an inter-governmental body to co-ordinate and direct


any environmental work undertaken by the United Nations, and have offered to provide a home in London for the Secretariat.

Mr. Dalyell: Therefore we may take it that the support is enthusiastic and not just tepid?

Mr. Page: Indeed. I see in a report of yesterday's proceedings that a resolution setting up a body of the sort described in the Question was passed by a special committee.

Mr. Rost: Was not the Stockholm conference, despite the constructive contribution of the British Government, a shambolic failure?

Mr. Page: The conference has not yet finished. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at the conference now.

Housing (Elderly Persons)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional capital resources have been made available for housing the elderly as a result of the increased sale of council houses.

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Member is confusing two separate matters. I want to see local authorities both building to meet the housing needs of the elderly and selling council houses to meet the needs and wishes of those of their tenants who want to own their homes.

Mr. Bidwell: It is clear that the Question has been dodged. Since the traditional policies of housing municipalisation intertwine the provision for the aged with existing council tenancies and so on, will not there be a tendency to allow old people to fend for themselves? Is it not clear that the Government's aim is not only to run down the whole of public control of housing in this respect but also public provision for the elderly?

Mr. Eyre: To refer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, it is true that more resources are received by the local authority, and this is potentially one of the good results of selling. As to the need to build for the elderly, in each case it is for the local authorities to decide. Now that they have an improved framework in which to operate, there is no question of

limiting the resources available to borrowing as there was under the previous Government.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it would help to house the elderly and to reduce land and house prices if planning authorities would give permission, regardless of density, for additional accommodation for the elderly to live adjacent to their children? Will he discuss that with planning authorities?

Mr. Eyre: Yes, Sir, and I agree with my hon. Friend's point that density in planning permissions is relevant in this case. But the main factors my hon. Friend mentioned about the building programme are matters which can be decided by the local authority. We are encouraging them to progress along that line.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman have urgent consultations with the Secretary of State for Social Services in the light of major reorganisations in local government and the Health Service and, under the Seebohm Report, of welfare services? The question of housing the elderly runs across all three, and geriatric wards and Part III homes. There is an urgent need for the right hon. Gentleman's Department to co-ordinate all those efforts.

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. There are special needs in this area which are receiving urgent attention and are being specially studied.

London Housing Office

Mr. Well beloved: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to encourage London boroughs which have declined to support the London Housing Office to reconsider their decision.

Mr. Amery: Under the Housing Finance Bill the provisional assessment of fair rent is the responsibility of each housing authority.

Mr. Well beloved: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered the right Question. What my Question has to do with the Housing Finance Bill, I am not certain. As the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my Question, perhaps he will answer my supplementary question.


Will he note that it is the Conservative-controlled London boroughs which are declining to assist in dealing adequately with the terrible housing problem faced by the Inner London Council? Will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those Tory local authorities which have failed to co-operate, and will he take strenuous action to encourage them to deal with the problem rather than fiddle-faddle around with his fancy gimmicks of selling council houses?

Mr. Amery: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if inadvertently I answered his Question incorrectly. The London Housin Office, which is sponsored by the London Boroughs Association, is still in a formative state, but if it develops into an organisation which can help to solve the London housing problem I have little doubt that it will be supported by all the authorities concerned. It has been set up by the Association as an independent venture. I have not been consulted and therefore it is not appropriate at this stage that I should intervene in the matter.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that most Conservatives within London have dogmatically refused to support the concept and have evinced the most considerable hostility towards it? Will not he take action to ensure that at least they respond positively for once on this very important issue?

Mr. Amery: As I have already said, I have not been officially consulted about the matter by the London Boroughs Association, and therefore the question has not yet arisen.

Intensive Livestock Farming (Residential Areas)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider taking steps to reduce the problems presented by the increasing incidence of intensive livestock farming in close proximity to residential areas.

Mr. Graham Page: The problems of the location of intensive livestock farming are under constant consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and myself.

Mr. Hardy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a number of areas, notably in Anston in my constituency, housing estates have been developed and then in proximity to the new houses massive increases in pig-farming have taken place, with all the attendant aggravating problems of smell and sewage disposal? Does not he consider that it is unreasonable that people should have to wait until the problems are severe before any action can be taken?

Mr. Page: I think the authorities are well aware of local opinion on the matter, but I am considering issuing further advice to them because I know the concern about it.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the specific decision in connection with Wood Lane pig farm, Stan-more, where a plan to expand a pig-farming operation is causing great consternation to many of my constituents?

Mr. Page: I shall write to my hon. Friend about the matter.

Land Shortage (Departmental Studies)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest outcome of his departmental studies on the problem of land shortage; and when he expects to make a policy statement on the matter.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on the measures taken by the Government about land prices.

Mr. Graham Page: I have nothing to add to the policy statement made by my right hon. Friend on 27th April explaining the many measures being taken to increase the supply of land.—[Vol. 835, c. 1795.]

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is simply not good enough? Does not he appreciate that there is a large and increasing mass of evidence that land is being held, where planning permission has already been given, for a number of years, purely for


speculative profit-making purposes? Will he undertake to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find fiscal means of preventing that kind of anti-social practice?

Mr. Page: The best way to deal with that is to convince those who are holding land speculatively in that way that they will not benefit from it. That is our object in bringing forward more land. The progress reports from the regions show that our measures are increasing the supply of land. My right hon. Friend and I had an encouraging session with the chairmen of the county councils of the South-East yesterday. The report of the working party on the partnership between the local authorities and private developers is expected in a few days, and I think it will give us further items which we can take up in this respect.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there does not seem to have been a response to the initiative taken by the Secretary of State. In view of this, what further initiatives is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take?

Mr. Page: The response has been quite encouraging. With respect to the loan sanctions, the £80 million that is to be made available for the acquisition of land, particularly in the South-East and Midlands, and the loan sanction with regard to sewerage schemes, discussions on these are all being pursued and many are in an advanced state at local planning authority level.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that we shall never know in reality whether there is a land shortage until we know exactly how much suitable building land we have? Is it not staggering that there has never been an acre-by-acre survey of land in our towns and cities?

Mr. Page: We have now asked the local authorities to give us a report on how much land is available in their areas for development over the next five years.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, speaking from experi-

ence as a landlord, I can tell him how astonishingly profitable it has been to hold land and that this profitability has been increased by the prospect of joining the European Economic Community where the land will be about twice as expensive? Is he further aware that the only way to break this racket is for the Government to take over at a very low price, the land which is idle and not being used?

Mr. Page: I think it was proved during the period of the last Government that the public ownership of land or the taking over of land by the Government had no good effect on either the price or the availability of the land.

Mr. John Silkin: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I said earlier, that the price of land dropped by 4 per cent. under a Labour Government as a result of the Land Commission? May I also point out that his figure showing that the highest increase in the price of land took place under a Labour Government is now out of date? His Department's figures related to 1971 and not 1972. Finally, will he say how he can justify the fact that at the moment there are more than 150,000 planning permissions for houses in excess of the number of houses being built? Is this not because of land being hoarded for speculation?

Mr. Page: May I first apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not thanking him for his kind remarks about me earlier? I am aware of the excess of planning grants over the number of houses being built. This is exactly the problem we are tackling with the discussions in the regions and with the conference which my right hon. Friend and I had with the chairmen of the county councils yesterday.

Later—

Mr. Willey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, may I give notice that I shall endeavour to pursue this matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is too late.

BILL PRESENTED

HARBOURS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith and Mr. Terence L. Higgins presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to develop, maintain and manage, or authorise other persons so to do, harbours in Scotland, made or maintained by him for any purpose, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 13th June].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 2

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATIES

Amendment proposed [13th June]: No. 429, in page 4, line 25, at end add:
(7) Nothing in the foregoing subsections shall enable regulations to be made allocating the representation of the Houses of Parliament at the European Parliament which representation shall only be effected in accordance with the following subsection.
(8) The lists of names of the proposed representatives of the Houses of Parliament at the European Parliament shall be laid in draft before, and shall be subject to the approval of, the House of Commons.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: Those of us who listened to the debate last evening on this important question of what control the House would have over our future representation in the European Parliament, cannot but agree that the debate was highly unsatisfactory and that we were no further forward at the end of it. I make no apology for taking up some of the time of the Committee this afternoon because the question of our representation in that Parliament is extremely important. We ought to have further time on this matter even though the "Clause 2 stand part" debate is important. I would have thought that whatever our views on the merits of the Bill, whether we are for it or against it, there would be general agreement on one thing: namely, that none of us is satisfied with the democratic content of control over the administration of the European Community.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is an understatement.

Mr. Steel: That is precisely why I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assent and that is why I think this is an important matter which ought not to be allowed to go in the way it went last night. The fact is that neither from the Government nor from the official Opposition did we have any views put forward as to what form that representation should take and what we ought to be doing once we are in the EEC to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament.
The only constructive suggestion we had during the entire debate was from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Darling), who put forward the idea that the Labour Party's representation in the European Parliament should be decided by a vote among members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I make no comment on that. I am not at all hostile to the idea. At least it was one constructive suggestion. We ought to have had a great many more of that kind. There is some urgency about this. If things go according to the Government's plan and we enter the Community on 1st January, then we shall have membership of the European Assembly. I understand that we would have to arrange for our representatives to be selected by whatever method is agreed, obviously in advance of 1st January.
I believe that the European Parliament has extended an invitation for the prospective delegation to attend its session this autumn to see the workings of the Parliament before we enter. If this is so it is clearly essential that our representatives be selected before October. Bearing in mind that the House will have a Summer Recess, we hope, it is clearly essential that the question of our representation in the European Parliament should be settled at an early stage.
While I accept the argument that altering a Clause in the Bill is not the right way to settle this, it is surely legitimate for the Opposition to move an Amendment to elicit from the Government their intentions as to our representation in the European Parliament. If this matter is not to be settled as a result of this short debate it is essential that we have an undertaking from the Government that there will be another occasion to debate our representation in the European Parlia-

ment before a method of selecting our representatives is finally settled.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) raised the perennial question of the quality and the powers of the European Assembly as it exists. This is very much a chicken and egg question: which comes first, the improvement in the constitution and the powers of the European Parliament or an improvement in the quality of the representatives willing to attend? This is something to which this country could make a positive contribution because it is some years before member States will agree to a system of direct elections. However, there is nothing to stop any individual State from moving directly and unilaterally to a system of direct elections for its own representation in the European Assembly. The preference of the Liberal Party has clearly been for this country to agree that on entry we will select our representatives by some process of direct election, thereby setting an example and helping to move forward the position of the democratic content in the European institutions.
I am attracted by the basis of the plan which has been put forward by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), although I disagree with some of the details. He has operated from the proposition that of the 36 representatives that we shall have in the European Parliament six should be from the other place. I do not agree with those who say that the other place should be totally unrepresented, because as long as we have a bicameral system it is right that there should be some manner of representation from that House in the European Parliament. I am not wedded to any particular formula, but let us take the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. It is that 30 of the 36 should be elected representatives. He proposes that there should be regional elections. If that happened it would be necessary to have some form of proportional system, not just on the merits of the case but because in due course when the members of the Community together agree on a system of direct elections for the European Parliament it is inconceivable that of all the systems of election available in the member States they would choose the British system as being the one which is


most out of step and most undemocratic. Therefore, we might as well start by thinking of a proportional system of election for this regional representation.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Is not the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) being inconsistent? On the one hand, he is so concerned about exact representation that he advocates proportional representation for the selection of representatives to the European Parliament. On the other hand, he is standing by the idea that a large proportion of our delegation should come from a place which represents nobody and no constituency.

Mr. Steel: I am not saying that there should be a large representation from the other place. The Liberal Party has consistently put forward proposals for the democratic reform of the Upper House. The fact that this has not happened is no reason why the other place should go totally unrepresented. I will not digress into the Liberal proposals for reforming the House of Lords. All I say is that there must be some representation from the House of Lords, and I am coming on to mention a new rôle for the House of Lords.
The right hon. Member for Fulham suggests that the 30 regional Members of Parliament elected to represent this country in the European Parliament should have seats in this House. I do not believe that would be acceptable to the House, and I do not like the idea that 30 extra Members of Parliament, with no ordinary constituency representation, who spend a lot of time in Europe, should be able to come here whenever they wish to speak and possibly affect the Divisions. Therefore, I suggest a positive proposal.
We have to meet the present requirement of the European Parliament that the delegates we send are also Members of the national Parliament. My suggestion is that those 30 elected persons should have seats ex officio in the other place for the duration of their office. That is not such a revolutionary suggestion as it sounds. In 1959 the House of Commons approved the suggestion that new creatures called life peers should be created. There is no reason why we should not go a stage further and create peers ex officio for the period for which

they hold office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members who jeer might say how otherwise we can meet the requirements that the members we send must be Members of the national Parliament. Would they prefer that the 30 members should be able to influence our Divisions? That would be much more undemocratic.
Moreover, there is a precedent for electing people in the other place. Until 1963 there were 16 elected peers from Scotland. Admittedly, they could not stand for election unless they were peers in the first place, and the only people who could elect them were peers, so it was not a democratic system, but there is no reason why we should not use it as a precedent for the creation of new peers ex officio. It is not necessary for them to be trammelled with all the trappings of office. After all, if the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton) can sit in this House and have the privilege of calling himself Lord Lambton, there is no reason why, for example, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) should not be elected to the European Parliament, sit in another place and have the privilege of calling himself Mr. Hamilton. It is a perfectly logical process. In the meantime, it is unlikely that the Government will be prepared to consider a system of direct election, so we fall back on to the question of how the representatives will be appointed from our own number.
I agree with the spirit of the Amendment. It is important that the members, by whatever method they are selected, should be approved by the House of Commons and that they should be listed on the Order Paper—in the same way as appointments to the Select Committees are approved by the House.

3.45 p.m.

In considering what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said yesterday, it is not enough to draw an analogy with our present method of selecting representatives for the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, by which the usual channels submit nominations and the Prime Minister announces the appointments in a Written Answer. That would be inadequate for the new machinery of the European Parliament. I intervened in the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy yesterday to ask him about this,


and he said that it was always open to debate. My researches have gone back only 10 years, but never in the last 10 years has our delegation to the Council of Europe been debated in the House. It is not enough to say that the machinery could be found for providing the opportunity for debate on a Supply Day, on a Private Member's Motion or on an Adjournment debate. As the Amendment suggests, there must be an undertaking from the Government that whatever method is used—whether it be the usual channels, intra-party elections or whatever—the final list will be included on the Order Paper, debated in the House and approved. I hope the Government will give an assurance that the House of Commons will at least have that power.

Mr. Neil Marten: And if it does not?

Mr. Steel: I will readily give way to any right hon. or hon. Gentleman on the Government benches who can give that assurance.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): There might have been misunderstanding on both sides of the Committee about what I was trying to say last night. In dealing with what I thought would be a short debate, I emphasised that these are not matters for inclusion in the Bill but matters of procedure. The Government have always been willing to discuss matters of procedure through the usual channels—we have, of course, received no response from the Opposition—but we in no sense contemplate dealing with a matter of this kind by announcing a delegation by a Written Answer. There is no possibility of the House of Commons being bypassed, without there being discussion and debate upon the composition of the delegation.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have mentioned the procedure adopted in other countries. Other shave said that we should have regard to our experience in the Council of Europe Assembly and Western European Union, and there may be other considerations.
If it is the wish of the Committee, the Government are perfectly willing to propose the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the ways in which members

could be nominated for the European Assembly. That would provide a full opportunity for views to be expressed and examined. The Select Committee could report to the House, and the report could be debated if the House so wished. I hope that I have clarified the position.
What I emphasised last night is that it is not right for matters of procedure to be dealt with in the Bill. It is unnecessary and would create an unreasonable restriction, but I agree that these matters should be discussed, and I hope the Opposition will be ready to do so in the usual way. I give the assurance that we should be happy with procedure such as a Select Committee, which would ensure that the matter was debated and considered.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful for that rather lengthy intervention. My immediate reaction is that the Chancellor of the Duchy has gone further than he did last night in giving us an assurance that the Council of Europe method of appointment will not be applied to appointments to the European Parliament, and I welcome that. If the Chancellor of the Duchy means that a Select Committee will consider the methods by which our representatives are chosen, it will have to start work very quickly. I hope, if that is an agreed proposal, that the Select Committee will be appointed soon.
I consider that the present method of selecting and appointing our delegation to the Council of Europe is utterly unsatisfactory, and that that method must not be repeated for the selection and appointment of our representatives to the European Parliament. I gave notice to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that I would refer to this. The hon. Member for Greenock in the present Session was dropped from the delegation to the Council of Europe by the method of the Written Answer for inner-party discliplinary reasons which have nothing to do with the way in which he conducted his responsibilities at the Council of Europe. It is disgraceful that the House of Commons has no control over matters of that kind. There must not be a similar situation in the European Parliament whereby members are chosen or dropped for reasons of internal party discipline rather than for the way in which they conduct their responsibilities.
We have taken the matter as far as we can today, but I hope that there will be an occasion for us to debate it again.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I wish to express agreement with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) since what he has said is a regrettable fact. It would be just as regrettable if it occurred on this side of the House. This matter of repreentation in the important European assemblies should not be confused with matters of domestic party political discipline. Nobody gains by it and it is right that this point should be made.
I agree with the two basic points behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks—first, his point about the importance of this matter, and, secondly, the fact that this is not a suitable moment or opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate upon it.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) last night sought to present himself in a very favourable light. He put himself forward as a knight—not a knight of the shires, because that would place limits on even his histrionic abilities but as a knight of the constitution fighting an impossible Government who were determined to push through the Bill at all costs, and accept no discussion or Amendments. But the hon. Gentleman well knows that a power struggle is taking place in this House and that if there are hon. Members anxious to push the Bill through, there are equally other hon. Members who are willing to push it out.
The hon. Member used the important matter of representation of this country in the European Parliament as a procedural device to harry the Government and to delay the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order, Sir Robert. My hon. Friend has just accused the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) of using a method, with the assumption that it is not a parliamentary method, to harry the Government in order to get rid of the Bill. Since this Amendment was accepted by you, Sir Robert, at the last minute, is this not a reflection—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is not a point of order for me.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is an extremely important subject but needs to be discussed in a less contentious atmosphere than that which surrounds Amendments on this Bill. If the invitation to discuss this matter through the usual channels had been accepted, the hon. Member and others would have been able to discuss the important proposal which was put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy this afternoon. It is a very important advance to have the offer of a Select Committee to discuss the involved questions that arise when Members of this House are selected for these assemblies. A Select Committee would appear to be the way to deal with the problem, and I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said.
I hope that we shall have a full debate on this subject on a Supply Day, in Government time, or a combination of the two. The issues that arise under article 137 of the treaty cannot be disposed of in a brief debate. There is the problem of finding 36 Members of this House who are willing to take on this task. I believe that they should be largely Members of this House. I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles when he says that there should be some Members of the other House involved in these duties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because this is a bicameral legislature and both Houses should be represented.
I do not think one should accept the hon. Gentleman's idea about peers ex officio, which would be a new departure. He sought to compare it with life peerages, but life peerages were not a new departure. As the mode of creation of life peerages was the point at issue in the Wenslydale peerage case it was held that peerages could not be created by prerogative. However, life peerages had been known in the House of Lords for hundreds of years before that case. The spiritual peers, for example, have life peerages. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be a radical departure.

Mr. David Steel: Are not the spiritual peers ex official?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is true that they are peers ex officio, but I suppose one would have to look at what "officio" they are proceeding from. One


cannot compare the position of the established Church, an estate of the realm, which has been here for hundreds of years, with something as new and as evanescent, as it is at this stage, as the European Assembly. It is important that we should be properly represented in this assembly and that we should not be represented by only elder statesmen and by those who feel that they can spend their declining years in such an assembly. It is important that we should not be represented by ghosts—in other words, by those who never appear in this House. It is also important that representation should not be confined to those who have given up hope or those who have never had any. We want a delegation that is representative of the best in the House of Commons and will require intense discussion to discover the best way of bringing about this situation.
Most of the difficulty flows from the amount of time which Members have to spend in meetings of the full European Assembly or in various committees. It has been estimated that a Member who takes on this task will have to spend 100 days abroad. This raises problems of attendance in this House and of the relationships of Members to their constituencies. Those who have served in the Council of Europe or in WEU know the difficulties one can face through absence from this place and through being away from one's constituency when taking on this form of service. The situation will be much worse under the terms of the EEC Treaty. This again is a problem which will have to be examined.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Could the hon. Gentleman say why his remarks, which I hope he will soon draw to a close, are relevant to the Amendment, which asks only that any arrangement should be subject to this House? Is he in favour of arrangements being subject to the House. If not, will he tell the Committee why he is not in favour?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since I had the courtesy to give way to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), he might have been a little more courteous to me. If he thought my remarks were a little long, then he certainly made his contribution to them. Of course, I am in favour of

this House having control of appointments. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it would not be suitable to do this in the same way as we appoint members to WEU or the Council of Europe. That would be a quite unsuitable way to handle the matter. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, but, since this matter would not lend itself to inclusion in the Bill because it is on another issue, I feel that the hon. Member for Acton has only confused the matter.
4.0 p.m.
We have also to consider the present state of the European Assembly as well as the future development of its powers, which undoubtedly will grow if that Parliament is to become a Parliament in the true sense. In a sense, at the moment the European Assembly has both too great a power and too little. It has too great a power because it can dismiss the Commission, and that is a weapon of such great power that it can never be used. On the other hand, the devices of question time, and so on, which have been developed in this House, have not been fully developed there. There are great potentials. All these issues could be fully discussed in a Select Committee.
There is also the related question of where the European Parliament should have its sittings. This will materially affect Members in this House. If it were here in England, which would be very suitable since England is the Mother of Parliaments, it would aid Members here considerably. On the other hand, there is a suggestion which has been put forward in The Economist this week—[Interruption.] This is an Amendment which has been tabled by the Opposition, and, therefore, we have a right to discuss it. There is the suggestion put forward in The Economist for a Parliament which would move from centre to centre. That also would have a great deal to be said for it.
There are many different views on this subject in the House. This debate, although it has been far too short, has been the occasion of the first debate we have had in this House on the question of the European Parliament. It has served a valuable purpose. It has not exhausted the subject. I hope that it


will merely be a preliminary to a full-scale debate in connection with the proposition to appoint the Select Committee which has been made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon.

Mr. Michael Foot: I intervene extremely briefly, partly to respond to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because he has made a novel proposition in reply to the spokesman for the Liberal Party, and partly because I hope that the Committee may be willing—I have no powers to compel it—to proceed to vote on this Amendment so that we may have a discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
Some of us on both sides of the Committee think that Clause 2 involves the widest and most far-reaching transfer of powers from this House of any Bill which has been presented to us for many years. It would be a great tragedy if the "Clause stand part" debate were severely curtailed, as it will be further curtailed if this debate goes on, because that debate must come to an end at 7.30. That is the situation.
I fully appreciate the feelings of all hon. Members on different sides of the House, including the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The composition of the people to be sent to the Assembly is an extremely important question. It is not our fault that we do not have much longer to speak on the matter. That might be noted by hon. Members on all sides of the House. We would have been extremely happy to have had a whole day to discuss this question. Indeed, I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there ought to be time provided by the Government, at a very early date, to discuss this subject. Nor do I exclude the possibility that there might be a Select Committee to examine some of these questions.
Certainly on this side of the House we shall consider that. We have not previously had the proposition to consider a Select Committee on this matter. We proposed a Select Committee to examine the whole question of the financial obligations under the Bill. It would have been better if the first proposal for a Select Committee on this matter had been made in this debate today. Cer-

tainly we will consider that. All we were offered was the proposal to discuss this matter through the usual channels. Our reply to that was to say that we did not think it was a proper matter to settle between the usual channels. What we wanted was the safeguard that the matter had to be brought before the House of Commons. That is the narrow point on which this Amendment is now being discussed.
That does not conflict with the possibility of a full debate on the matter, which I entirely agree should take place at an early stage in Government time. Nor does it conflict with the possibility of our agreeing to a Select Committee in some form. We will certainly consider that. All it provides is that this House of Commons shall have a final remnant of control over the matter. It is not restrictive in any way. It is merely the final obligation of Government to bring the matter before the House of Commons in the end. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has continuously insisted that this would happen anyway. If it is going to happen, why not accept this Amendment?
I hope that the Committee will agree to vote on this matter now. It is not binding anybody as to the form of the representation. It is not binding anybody as to preventing the Select Committee or preventing another debate. Indeed, it should encourage another debate. All that we shall be doing is establishing in this Bill that there shall be some eventual control.
On that basis, I plead with the Committee to vote on this matter in order to allow the maximum time for a debate which will govern the future of parliamentary government in this country for decades to come.

Mr. Fell: I start with the most humble apology to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who made an appeal to us to vote. Let me tell him straight away that were I to believe, as I did at one stage last night at about a quarter to seven, that were the vote to come quickly there was a chance of the Government being defeated on the Amendment, I would hasten to be with him because I believe this Amendment should be accepted. I


remind him of this in extenuation of my saying a few words on this matter.
This is the hon. Member's Amendment. He believes strongly in it, as was evidenced by his powerful speech last night. But he is not the only one to believe strongly in this matter. Members in all parts of the House have strong feelings on how this House should eventually be represented in the European Parliament. The whole thing is a nonsense, because I do not think it will be physically possible for the usual channels or the votes of this House, which are only hit or miss however one looks at them, to devise a way of sending only 36 Members of this House from both sides, with perhaps one from the third side, to represent the views of this House. Even if this House could devise a method satisfactory to the majority, one has to consider also the satisfaction not only of this House but of the people who put us here.
It was said the other day that this Bill is a battle not between us and the Government but between Parliament and the people. There was no truer description used during the whole of these debates than that description, that this is a battle between the people and Parliament. In spite of the enormous weight of publicity and all the means at the disposal of modern plastic men to persuade the electorate that this European Bill which the Government are trying to press through at the moment is to their advantage and that they will prosper and grow to great proportions or will recover some of their lost individuality and belief in themselves and faith in the world through joining Europe, the fact is that the Government and their panoply of advertisement, such as has never been seen in the history of Parliament before, have failed abysmally. There has been no genuine, open cry from the British people "Yes, we want to join Europe."
I should be in the greatest danger if I continued to generalise when discussing an Amendment concerned with the representation of this House in the European Parliament, and I should get into even more trouble from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who wants the Committee to vote at once, were I not to call in aid the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire.

East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) last night, when drawing attention to the importance of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. In the course of his remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
It has excited very considerable interest outside. To date, that interest has been insufficiently reflected in our proceedings.
That is why the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale went to considerable effort to table an Amendment on this subject at this stage. My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
It may well be that if this is not the occasion for a major debate on it, steps should be taken to initiate such a debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1392.]
When will debate be initiated? We are working to the timetable. At least there is no blood on my hands from the guillotine. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talks about his Amendment, which he has rightly and fairly tabled, and says that the Committee must come to a decision upon it. Why? His reason is that this afternoon we are due to debate the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". We hope to be debating it. However, if we were debating in fairness and in truth and with Government blessing, we should be debating this Amendment alone for a full day.
Where are we now as a result of the guillotine? We have had the benefit of hearing the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale for 10 minutes. His remarks were admirably clear and brief. We have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East for 10 minutes. We have heard the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) for only a few minutes. In addition, one or two other hon. Members have spoken. We are now asked to come to a decision. To do what? To plead with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in some way to alleviate our fears about the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". What rubbish is this? There is not an hon. Member who does not realise that the Government have foresworn themselves and sold themselves. There is not an hon. Member who does not realise that there is no chance in the world of amending the Bill, since the Government do not intend to allow the Bill to have a Report stage. So we are placed in the invidious position of being asked by right hon. and hon.


Members opposite, who after all are major figures in the battle against the Bill, to come to a decision.
Having had my say and because I want to respond, I say little more. However, it would be rude in the extreme if, having had my say, I were to invite other right hon. and hon. Members to respond to the kindly and genuine invitation of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I conclude my remarks by repeating that it is all very well for us to discuss an Amendment which seeks to find a way to make representation in the European Parliament more possible and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said, more democratic than any way that has been thought of so far. However, everyone in this House who has thought about these matters knows that such a possibility does not exist, however much we may desire it. We are entering a chaotic state of partnership which has no chance of success.
4.15 p.m.
I remember very well in Yarmouth, which some hon. Members may know was a fishing port on the East Coast, an experiment about 10 years ago, in the kind of EEC co-operation that the Government now ask for, in relation to one trawler. It lasted one trip, after which the whole idea was withdrawn. It was found impossible for all those concerned to equate their ideas with each other and to run one trawler for money.

Mr. Marten: It reminds me of the recent Everest expeditions.

Mr. Fell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) says, we have had two multi-national Everest expeditions. Both ended in disaster. Yet here are Her Majesty's Government gaily suggesting a similar venture without a thought as to how it is to be brought about and what future there is for Britain's influence upon the Europeans. What a prospect for the British people, and what an encouragement for them to give full-hearted consent to this tragic Bill which was the child of Mr. Harold Macmillan, and the adopted child of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister!
I pray that in the end some way will be found for the true will of the British people in this matter to exercise itself upon this House, whatever the result may

be for their representaiton in this Parliament, which I love and which I know my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy loves. How ever, my right hon. and learned Friend, like many others, is caught up in the tragedy of a promise which he cannot—I was about to say "not only"—deny but which he cannot even improve the methods towards—

Mr. John Pardoe: The hon. Member is getting lost.

Mr. Fell: No, I am not getting lost. My right hon. and learned Friend has got himself in a position where he dare not even improve the vehicle, which he is foresworn to approve and to rush through in order to put Britain into this extraordinary position in Europe.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I shall be extremely brief. I have the record of a Trappist despite the lengthy proceedings of this Committee. However, reference has been made to me, and I shall take this opportunity also to raise one or two matters.
Today, the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and I find ourselves allies. I recall the words of the great Duke when, at Torres Vedras, reviewing the newly arrived reinforcements from England, he said:
I do not know what the French will think about them, but they damn well frighten me.
As an ally, the hon. Member for Yarmouth frightens me. However, he has a point.
I interrupted the Chancellor of the Duchy with a brief question last night, and I did not find his reply satisfactory. I thought that his offer today of a Select Committee was an answer on how to deal with the long-term problem and a very good one, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has responded in as warmhearted a way as he has.
But what of the short term? In this Amendment we are concentrating on this very simple point. The question is not whether or not the Chief Whips of the three parties continue to select the Members to go to the Council of Europe or the other Assemblies, either Western European Union or the North Atlantic Council. That has been the convention


for many years. I do not complain about anything that has happened recently. What the Lord giveth the Lord also taketh away. It is not in that spirit that I speak.
This Amendment proposes that we should have an affirmative Resolution to endorse the names of those who are going, however they may be chosen, to represent the entire House of Commons in the European Parliament. That being so, this procedure means there has to be a debate. Personally, I hope the parties would agree that they would have election machinery within their own parliamentary groups to elect these members.
The Chancellor of the Duchy is not being fair to us in saying that somehow or other machinery exists for this to be discussed at the present time. It does not exist. The matter never has been debated, so far as I know, and I have been here for 16 years. I cannot see what mechanism there is for us to have a guaranteed annual debate of that kind.
The Chancellor could be completely honest and tell us he does not want any kind of Amendment to this Bill. I can see some sense from his point of view in that opinion. That may be the reason why he is not going to accept any Amendment, however sensible. He has not frankly confessed that. Maybe he is not in a position to do so. If that is not the confession, if it is the case that he could accept the Amendment then I think this is an eminently sensible one. It does no harm to his general proposition as expressed in the Clause or in the entire Bill. At the same time it safeguards the interests of all Members of the House which were so ably defended not only by all the previous speakers yesterday and today but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I should like to tell the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) how much his cheerfulness and ability are missed at the Council of Europe.
I should like to ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) whether in the course of the last quarter of an hour or so he has reflected that if he pursues this Amendment to a Division he will be depriving two of his

hon. Friends, or other Members of this Committee, of the opportunity of taking part in the subsequent debate. He has said that he put down this Amendment because he objected to the position in which it appeared that the membership of the European Parliament might be given in answer to a Written Question, having been entirely fixed up through the usual channels. He has heard since that at the very least it will appear on the Order Paper in the same manner as that in which a Select Committee is appointed. I should have thought that was the minimum that this House would accept. In pursuing this Amendment the hon. Member is prejudging the situation when, as is hoped, not only will there be a full later debate but that will be preceded by an inquiry by Select Committee into this most important topic.
I would urge the hon. Gentleman to consider how many technical matters need to be thoroughly examined; not only the practice in other countries—as to how they enable members of their national Parliaments to reconcile their duties with attendance at the European Assembly—but matters of peculiar difficulty to Britain such as the fact that because we are an island it generally means one must take an aeroplane to leave the country. It is obvious that those Members who go to the European Assembly will need to keep in very close touch with this place if only for the reason that Members of this House will very much want to question members of the European Assembly to get them to explain their actions. There must be a very great interchange of views.
That is going to be difficult to organise. Therefore, it is something that a Select Committee wants to look at very closely. There is the matter of pairing and official leave of absence. It would be better for those things to be inquired into and to be the subject of a full debate later on.
As it is, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to get the House to alter its own long-established practices. The House of Commons has a method of selecting and appointing its Members to perform specific duties, either by a Select Committee or by other means. The names appear on the Order Paper. They can be questioned. Yet the hon. Gentleman is seek-


ing by this Amendment to bring in a complete innovation which is a departure from all our long traditional practices. It seems utterly out of character for him.
I would hope the hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment to a Division but would allow two more hon.

Members to take part in the subsequent debate.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 274, Noes 284.

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[4.25 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fell, Anthony
Lestor, Miss Joan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Allen, Scholefield
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashley, Jack
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lipton, Marcus


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Michael
Mabon, Sir J. Dickson


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil


Baxter, William
Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McElhone, Frank


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Biffen, John
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackintosh, John P.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Body, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMaster, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Maginnis, John E.


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tte-upon-Tyne,W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hardy, Peter
Marten, Neil


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Meacher, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horam, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Leslie
Moate, Roger


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Molloy, William


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molyneaux, James


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardigansthire)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cronin, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Irvlne, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) 
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) 
Ogden, Eric


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
O'Malley, Brian


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) 
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oram, Bert


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orme, Stanley


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham,S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Padley, Walter


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Dormand, J. D.




Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Judd, Frank
Paisley, Rev. Ian 


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Palmer, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Duffy A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dunnett, Jack
Kinnock, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lamble, David
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lamborn, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Ellis, Tom
Lamond, James
Pentland, Norman


English. Michael
Latham, Arthur
Perry, Ernest G.


Evans, Fred
Leadbitter, Ted
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Ewing, Henry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Faulds, Andrew
Leonard, Dick
Prescott, John




Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rankin, John
Stallard, A. W.
Wallace, George


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Watkins, David


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wellbeloved, James


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strang, Gavin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roderick. Caerwyn E.(Br'c'nSR'dnor)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Roper, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Rose, Paul B.
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Shore, Rt. Kn. peter (Stepney)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom
Woof, Robert


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tuck, Raphael



Sillars, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Skinner, Dennis
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Small, William




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dean, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hiley, Joseph


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dixon, Piers
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Astor, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Holland, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G. B.
Holt, Miss Mary


Awdry, Daniel
Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eden, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Batsford, Brian
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Emery, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Iremonger, T. L.


Benyon, W.
Fidler, Michael
James, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jessel, Toby


Blaker, Peter
Flelcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Boscawen, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Jopling, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fowler, Norman
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bowdon, Andrew
Fox, Marcus
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter
Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Elaine


Bray, Ronald
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.



Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gardner, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater) 


Bryan, Sir Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kinsey, J. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Allck (Angus, N&amp;M)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Kirk, Peter


Buck, Antony
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gorst, John
Knox, David


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gower, Raymond
Lambton, Lord


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lamont, Norman


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gray, Hamish
Lane, David


Cary, Sir Robert
Green, Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Grieve, Percy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n'C'dfield)


Churchill, W. S.
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Clark, William (Surrey. E.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Clegg, Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Loveridge, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Luce, R. N.


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Coombs, Derek
Hannam, John (Exeter)
MacArthur, Ian


Cordle, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McCrindle, R. A.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McLaren, Martin


Cormack Partick
Haselhurst, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Critchley Julian
Havers, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Crouch David
Hawkins, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Crowder, F. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Maddan, Martin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Madel, David


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)
Heseltine, Michael
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hicks, Robert
Mather, Carol


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. James









Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Temple, John M.


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Money, Ernie
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, s.)


Monro, Hector
Ridsdale, Julian
Tilney, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


More, Jasper
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Trew, Peter


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R


Morrison, Charles
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mudd, David
Rost, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


Murton, Oscar
Royle, Anthony
Waddington, David


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
St. John Stevas, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Neave, Airey
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wall, Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Normanton, Tom
Scott-Hopkins, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Nott, John
Sharples, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Onslow, Cranley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Shelton, William (Clapham)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Osborn, John
Simeons, Charles
Wiggin, Jerry


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilkinson, John


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Parkinson, Cecil
Soref, Harold
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Peel, John
Speed, Keith
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Spence, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sproat, Iain
Worsley, Marcus


Pink, R. Bonner
Stainton, Keith
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Hn. George


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)



Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stokes, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly negatived.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am extremely grateful to have the somewhat unexpected opportunity to start the debate. I shall not stand very long in the way of my hon. Friends. The point I want to make is one on which I feel I have been consistent. I make no particular claim to consistency. I am, after all, a former Secretary of the British Council for a United Europe. But one thing I have been consistent in is my view that a free economy must be regulated and that it can only be regulated by a price system.
This is the reason why I for the first time found myself in concert with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) when I denounced the industrial relations proposals introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and also when I opposed the incomes policy introduced by the Labour Govern-

ment. One thing is quite clear, and that is that the powers which we are surrendering to Europe by Clause 2 are certainly those powers which are absolutely necessary to implement any sort of effective incomes policy.
The Government have had experience of humiliation in their attempts to work the unworkable Industrial Relations Act. There is talk in the Tory Party and particularly within the Liberal Party about the necessity of an incomes policy. The Liberals must really make up their minds. They cannot have Clause 2 and an incomes policy because the two things are totally inconsistent. We tried an incomes policy; we tried it without adequate currency control and we tried it without an effective control of imports and exports. The result, of course, was that the balance of payments went wrong on us and the policy collapsed. It was bound to.
I remember at that time reminding the Labour Government that the attempt to control prices within an economy was a pretty ancient one. It was tried by Julian the Apostate in Antioch when he moved an army there. He proceeded to regulate prices, upon which all goods disappeared from the open market and


moved on to the black market. He proceeded to try to stop the black market and then all goods disappeared altogether. He finally arrested the whole Senate of Antioch and marched them off to prison. But still his policy did not work and it had to be abandoned. Any attempt to regulate an economy in this sort of way by independently jamming the controls is destined to that sort of failure. It is important to emphasise this even in the absence from the Chamber of the Liberals, who at one and the same time demand Clause 2 and an incomes policy. The two are totally inconsistent.
An incomes policy can work. Indeed, it has worked brilliantly. The great example of a successful incomes policy was that worked by Dr. Schacht in Germany in the 'thirties. It was for a disgraceful end, but we should not blind ourselves to the astonishing success with which it dealt with mass unemployment and produced a staggeringly vigorous and effective economy. It did it. It achieved it, and one should note what was necessary.
It is said that the end cannot justify the means. When I hear that said I often wonder, if the end cannot justify the means, what the hell can? But—thisis looking at the matter on the inverse basis—the end should not discredit the means if the means are successful, and the example of an incomes policy then was astonishingly successful. It was successful because it exercised all the kinds of controls which we are prevented from exercising by the acceptance of the Clause.
First, it involved a huge public works policy to correct the unemployment problem. In the German case that was, in the main, armaments, but it need not be armaments. Heaven knows what a public works policy the ecology calls for in Britain today. It would be available to absorb any slack in the economy, as would a public works policy of consumer durables.
It secondly required the creation of a means to absorb the purchasing power created by that vast employment policy. There was one recommended to us yesterday by the Minister of Housing and Construction, or whatever his latest title is—the purchase of council houses. That is one of the means whereby, if this policy is being planned, the recipients of the

expansion policy are enabled to purchase that share of England which they had never possessed. That is a means.
One of the means used in Germany was the creation of a power to purchase long-term consumer goods on an instalment system. One thinks of the Volkswagen, and many other examples. That kind of policy is available now, but it will not be available within the Common Market system which imposes an open market, not only in goods and produce, but in the employment of labour. That kind of thing is unavailable to us under the European system.
Amongst the absorbers which could be used if there were a serious incomes policy would be a substantial capital levy on industrial investment and the sale of the produce of that levy in terms of industrial shares to the workers for whom we were creating new employment. All this kind of thing is forbidden by the Clause.
Finally, if we are to have an incomes policy we must be able to deal with the balance of payments problem which is going to hit us. That problem can be dealt with only if we control imports and exports by a licensing system. If we are to expand production by a public works system, we must be in a position to import those things which are necessary for that programme, and in doing that refrain from importing the things which are not necessary to it. That again was recognised and worked on by Dr. Schacht. It would not be available under this system.
But more important than everything else, we must be in a position to control our currency. This is where the previous Labour Government collapsed. Their social system and everything which they planned depended upon an expansion of production which they dared not accept because they could not accept that expansion of production and maintain the currency at a given level of exchange. The refusal to devalue spoiled the whole programme. The Prime Minister in his negotiations with M. Pompidou has undertaken that we shall not independently use our currency to promote our industrial interests.
Every one of those things is forbidden by the Clause. The whole purpose of the Clause, the whole purpose of Community legislation, is to impose a free system of exchange regulated by a price


system of free negotiations for goods and of free negotiations for labour. If one tries to control those two one throws the whole system out of gear, and all the legislation of the Market is designed precisely to prevent us doing that.
The single, short point is that people who wish for an incomes policy and this sort of European policy are wishing for two policies which are utterly inconsistent. That applies particularly to hon. Members in the Liberal Party. They must wake up and realise they can have one or the other, but not both.

4.50 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I have listened, as I always do, with interest and pleasure to the ingenious speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I listened with all the more pleasure because his speech illustrates extremely well a point I want to come to in a few moments.
No one, whatever his views, would for a moment question the immense importance of what we are being asked to decide today or its ultimate implications one way or the other. But clearly there is bound to be some difficulty in striking a proper balance between the narrow consideration of the terms of the Clause and the wider issues involved, which of course have already been repeatedly discussed, one might almost say ad nauseam.
I have so far not spoken in the Committee's debates on this Bill, but I have done my best to follow them and I have been greatly struck by the exceptionally high standard of debate on both sides of the Committee and on both sides of the argument. What has also struck me—the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was no exception—has been the tendency on the part of the opponents of the Bill and of this Clause in particular, to concentrate, perhaps quite naturally, on its more negative aspects, especially on the transfer of powers and controls, while completely ignoring its positive side.
In fact, it has always been recognised that
membership of the Communities involves a vesting of legislative and judicial powers, in certain fields, in the Community institutions and acceptance of a corresponding limitation of the ordinary exercise of national powers in those fields.…Accession to the

Treaties would involve the passing of United Kingdom legislation. This would be an exercise, of course, of Parliamentary sovereignty, and it is important to realise that Community law, existing and future, would derive its force as law in this country from that legislation passed by Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, cc. 1088–9.]
That, I think, is a fair enough statement of the position. And, in case hon. Members are surprised at the unwonted clarity and cogency with which I have been expressing myself, I hasten to admit that my last three sentences were lifted in toto from the speech made in this House five years ago by the present leader of the Opposition who was then, of course, Prime Minister. And we all know, especially after his speech at Nottingham last weekend, that consistency is the right hon. Gentleman's middle name.
So that, while I agree that there is a certain, in my view, rather mad, logic in the attitude of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have always opposed the whole concept of entry into Europe tooth and nail, root and branch, the present official attitude of the party opposite seems to me completely illogical. Surely, to accept five years ago by an enormous majority the principle that a Bill passed in all its stages through Parliament, in the
exercise, of course, of parliamentary sovereignty"—
as the present Leader of the Opposition put it—as a perfectly proper and a democratic way of fulfilling our undoubted obligations under the Treaty, and then, when it comes to the point, to hold up their hands in horror at the mere thought of such a thing, does not make any sense whatever.
There is something else that always surprises me. I am amazed by the assumption made by the opponents of entry, whether they are old hands or more recent converts, that, when we go into Europe, we shall automatically become the underdog; that we shall always be taking orders from someone else. It seems to me, to put it at its lowest, that that assumption does not take into account either our history or our known national characteristics. For example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) keeps on talking about our new tax-masters. But, in fact, when we


enter the community, we shall very soon have just as much say in fiscal policy and indeed all other fields of policy as anyone else. After all, we are joining a community on equal terms and not putting ourselves in a position of subjection to it, as some hon. Members seem to suggest.
This is not the Scottish Standing Committee and I do not know how many hon. Members here read the Scotsman. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) does; it would not be worth his while not to. But the point I am trying to make was, I thought, put extremely well in a recent letter to the Editor of the Scotsman from the former Convener of the Church and Nation Committee of the General Assembly, who happens to be a constituent of mine, the Reverend George Balls. He asks:
Have those who are so implacably opposed to our joining the E.E.C. so little faith in British ideals and institutions and in what Scotland has to contribute, that they believe that inevitably it must be the community which will shape us and that we can have no influence on the community?
Another thing that amazes me is the narrow nationalism, the deep distrust of anybody or anything foreign, not so much on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends from some of whom one might conceivably expect such views, but from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who in their more progressive moments, if that is the right word for it, chose to pose as internationalists. I find that absolutely staggering. And any of us who attends meetings of the Council of Europe. North Atlantic Assembly and who meets European trade unionists and Social Democrats, will know that they find it absolutely staggering too. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that, to find such deep seated, old fashioned nationalism, such pathological suspicion of everybody and everything foreign, one nowadays really has to go quite a long way behind the iron curtain—

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Fell: Has it not occurred to my hon. Friend that what we are being asked to join is precisely the reverse of an international organisation? It is an inward-looking organisation around which

has been put a tariff barrier. It is a miserable little internal organisation.

Sir F. Maclean: I had never thought of my hon. Friend as an internationalist, let alone an international social democrat, but we live and learn. Nor would I have thought that the Common Market at present, less still when it is extended next year, could properly be described as a miserable little body. Nor do I think that the very fact of welcoming in four more countries is proof that they are inward-looking. I should have thought that it proved exactly the opposite.
It seems to me a pity that hon. Members opposite have either adopted this attitude or had it forced on them—

Mr. Spearing: Where is the evidence?

Sir F. Maclean: Because I have a feeling that, left to themselves, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite would be just as ready as most of us are to go into Europe and to play a useful and constructive part there as members of an extended and enlarged Community. After all, at any rate some of the hundreds of hon. Members opposite who voted for entry five years ago must have known what they were voting for.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: It is now six weeks since we embarked on the debate on Clause 2. The structure of the Clause has of course made it inevitable that we should tackle it bit by bit and subsection by subsection, but now that we have worked our way through it, it is right that we should have some time to consider the totality of what these subsections involve.
I would say to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) that if we have found in our discussion of these subsections that there are many negative features in relation to the practice and prospects of democracy in this country, it is not because we have imported pessimistic material and conclusions into the substance of the Bill. It is because they are there, and the positive and more hopeful aspects are certainly not.
I would also say to the hon. Member that it is not good enough—it is a kind of intellectual laziness—for him to accuse those who have very real doubts and


objections about what is proposed of being animated by some kind of narrow nationalism. The choice is not that at all. Whether we wish to be nationalist or not in this country, we are involved in the whole progress and prospects of the human race. We are involved in every international organisation that exists. We are connected with all the continents of the world more intimately and with more connections probably than any other country in Europe.
The proposition before us is whether we should seek to establish a unique and special relationship with the Continent or part of the Continent of Europe. It is a relationship which involves—again, it is wishful thinking not to recognise this—a choice of giving a preference to that relationship with the countries of Western Europe and turning our backs, to a greater or smaller extent, on the much wider groupings and larger numbers of people with whom we are associated in other parts of the world. If any hon. Member does not recognise that this is part of the choice, one of the great matters that we have to decide, he has not faced this issue and the implications of our decision.
This takes us somewhat away from the immediate material that we have to consider in Clause 2. I can only put certain major points in winding up the debate on this Clause for this side of the Committee.
First, I emphasise what is apparent to all—the formidable nature of the rights and powers that the European institutions will acquire, if we pass this Clause, in relation to Britain and the British people. Over the whole area covered by the treaties—perhaps we do not need to be reminded that we are talking not just about the Rome, Paris and Luxembourg Treaties but also about the hundred other treaties which have proliferated in the life of the Communities—Britain will in effect cease to be self-governing. The power to make law, the power to raise taxes and to spend money, will have passed out of the control of Parliament and of the people whom we represent.
Just how completely this transfer will be effected is made all too clear in subsection (1). Not only must we import, without discussion and without any ability to amend, the output of these twelve years

of Community legislation, but henceforth, in relation not just to the thousand regulations which already exist but to the tens of thousands which are yet to come, the representatives of the British people will have no legislative function whatsoever. We cannot make them, we cannot amend them, we cannot repeal them. We will simply be notified, in the official journals of the Community, that they exist.
Further, under subsections (1) and (3), the Community acquires the right to tax the British people, in particular to take the proceeds of the new levies on our imported food and the whole of our Customs duties and up to a one per cent. value added tax. These sums, which will total anything from £500 million to £700 million a year will not belong to us at all. They will become part of the "own resources" of the Communities and they will "flow", as the Treasury Ministers have told us, directly from the British people to the European institutions, and this House will have no power to alter or to stop the flow or to decide on what these large sums will be spent.
Under subsection (2), Parliament is awarded the minor rôle of enacting that part of Community law which, for one reason or another—the reason has not yet been made clear—is not considered suitable for direct Community self-enacting legislation. Parliament will have the right not to refuse to enact a Community directive but only to introduce such minor modifications as enable it to fit the particular circumstances of our land.
To equip themselves for this task, the Government have taken, under subsection (2), powers to issue Orders in Council over an enormous area of our affairs in what amounts, as I said earlier, to a European Supplies and Services Bill.
Finally, under subsection (4), the Government have deposed the fundamental constitutional doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. Whether it is their intention and whether, if it is their intention, it will be the result, the words, as they stand and as some of the most eminent authorities in the country have interpreted them, would have the possibility at any rate of binding future Parliaments within the confines of this Bill.
In addition, no attempt has been made to assert that the area in which we shall be ceding self-government is limited.


On the contrary. the area will grow and the ability of this House to contain that growth will have been greatly weakened by the provisions of this Clause.
It needs only an affirmative Resolution under Clause 1(3) to double, treble or quadruple the powers to make law that Clause 2 vests in the Communities. A new Rome Treaty, far more ambitious than that of 1958, could be introduced and made operative by these means. As we know, there are treaties waiting in the wings which will, before long, come on to the very centre of the European stage. The powers that the House of Commons has been asked to renounce are clearly very substantial. No one who has any sense or an understanding of these matters will dispute that for a moment.
We come to the question whether this abandonment of our own powers is essential for the successful operation of an enlarged Community. It is a very important question. The answer will inevitably turn on what we conceive to be the fundamental purposes of the European Communities. Here we face one of the great complexities that has always surrounded this issue since it was first debated, for the European Communities have never been and, perhaps, can never be precisely defined. But if the main objective—I say "if"—is to establish a customs union in Western Europe, with certain common policies thrown in, and if Ministers are sincere when they say, as they did in the July White Paper, that the reality of the Community is that sovereign Governments are represented around the table and that
There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty
clearly, if that is so, the powers that the House of Commons has been asked to renounce are substanially in excess of those required for the successful operation of such a Community.
In the whole of our long debate on Clause 2(1), the only practical reason why the House of Commons should permit the Communities to make law for this country in the way that the subsection allows was given by the Solicitor-General on 25th April when he said:
It is necessary for there to be some rules regulating the operation of that Market which

operate in identical terms throughout the Market area.
This system can be achieved by a single coherent system of directly applicable Community laws applying in each Member State within the spheres covered by the Treaties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 1413.]
That is a practical explanation of Clause 2(1). The Solicitor-General did not say that this was the only way that the system could be achieved. He said that it "can" be achieved in this way. But the Solicitor-General knows as I know, that this requirement for uniform practice within an enlarged Community could be met, just as other Community requirements will be met, by the House of Commons legislating the necessary provisions. That is the truth. We can have a customs union and common policies with Europe if that be our wish without transferring out of this country the powers that are involved and which are abandoned in the Clause.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: Not for a moment.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman has been quoting me specifically.

Mr. Shore: I want to complete my point because it will perhaps help the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to give an analogy, a rather important one. Just as in EFTA free trade in industrial goods and common rules about trading policies and practices were agreed and carried out without ceding law-making powers to supranational institutions, so, too, a European Community whose major purpose was to establish a customs union and to harmonise its economic policies while preserving the reality of continued independence of the member States could work without any such device as is contained in Clause 2(1).

5.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The point that the right hon. Gentleman is overlooking is that he is describing the nature of a Community which could be devised in a different form and arguing that, therefore, the Bill should be in a different form. He overlooks what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made so clear


in the debate on 8th May, 1967 when speaking about the two main features of the treaties:
First, they provide continuing powers for the institutions of the Communities themselves to issue instruments which are binding upon the member States or take effect as law directly within them. Secondly, in some areas of Community law, Community institutions have power to adjudicate on and to enforce its provisions. Thus membership of the Communities "—
I interpose here the Communities springing from these treaties—membership has always involved what the Leader of the Opposition said—
a vesting of legislative and judicial powers, in certain fields in the Community institutions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746. c. 1088.]
That is what the Community is and always has been. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a different Community.

Mr. Shore: I rather regret giving way to the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Robert Adley: I bet that the right hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Shore: That is not because of the quality of the argument. [Interruption.]

Mr. Russell Kerr: Just listen to that lot.

Mr. Shore: I have not seen the hon. Gentleman feature very prominently in these debates. We can continue to ignore him for the rest of the afternoon, as he has ignored us during the several days in which this matter has been before the Committee.
I was not about to dismiss without thought, the point the Solicitor-General has made, but rather to move on to the matter he has raised, which was precisely what I intended to do.
I have said that no practical reason for this hand-over of power, other than the one I have quoted, has been adduced in these debates. But there is another reason why the Government have used these words. If I had given the Solicitor-General a few minutes longer he could have reminded us in a direct way that Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome at least appears to require the abandonment of national parliamentary control in the form that Clause 2(1) seeks to enact. I say "appears to require", because this

was one of the matters in serious dispute in the all-too-short debate that we were allowed under the guillotine. It will be recalled that there were a number of strong challenges to the Government's interpretation of the requirements of Article 189 of the Treaty as having to be expressed in the form that it is expressed in subsection (1) of the Clause. But even if the Government were right, if the translation of Article 189 required what I consider to be the appalling and brutal formulation of Clause 2(1), and if at the same time I am right in saying that no practical justification can be argued for it, are not we entitled to draw the conclusion that we have been misled about the purposes of the European Communities and the continuing reality of national decision-making within them?
Where such a provision as that contained in Clause 2(1) would be right, indeed, essential, would be in a European Community that was clearly programmed to become not just a customs union with a few common policies to assist it, but a sovereign State in some form or other, a United States of Europe. If that is the aim, the abandonment of the powers of self-government that subsections (1) and (3) impose upon us is wholly right. Indeed, if the aim were to establish such a Europe, a Europe not of national States but something quite different, in which the national States are submerged and subsumed, Clauses and subsections of this character would be essential. But that is something that the Government are specifically denying. It is something that the people of this country, and of Europe as well, as far as we can judge, have no wish for.
For the future we cannot speak. But should such a will and a wish emerge in the decades ahead, it would be right for fresh propositions to express that will and submit it to the peoples and Parliaments of the nations concerned. But if there are those whose coveted aim is to push toward a single State in western Europe and who justify Clause 2(1) and (3) in private, if not in public, on the grounds that it helps to forward this process by dismantling the powers of the individual States, then let me warn them that the price to be paid will be exacted from democracy itself.
The transfer of powers from the British Parliament and people that is involved


in 2(1) and 2(3) is not a transfer to a European Parliament. In the very short debate that we had earlier that point at least became clear. When I see the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) nodding I know that this is at least one matter on which he and I have been finding ourselves in agreement in this long debate. The transfer of powers is not to a European Parliament where similar functions to those which are performed in this House will be performed. It is a straight transfer to non-elected institutions of the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.
Let no one believe that the establishment of an effective parliamentary democracy is even yet remotely in sight. It will be extremely and extraordinarily difficult, given the institutional structure of the Communities, for a genuine Parliament to emerge. There is an example in the case history of the decision of April, 1970, to provide the European Communities with their "own resources". This was the moment when the European Communities achieved one of the major attributes of sovereignty—the power to tax and the right to dispose of their proceeds. But at this historic moment when the Strasbourg Assembly tried to bring these new powers of taxation and expenditure within its own competence, it was decisively rebuffed, as anyone who studied what happened in the winter of 1970 and the spring of 1971 will know well. Today the Communities have their own resources but 90 per cent. of them are wholly excluded from any kind of control by the European Assembly and are kept within the decision-making grip of officials, Ministers and Commissioners in Brussels.
How can such a surrender of self-governing power be justified? How can the Government persuade the House today to connive at the dismantling of so many of the powers of the British state, and at the surrender of their own rights and powers? I hope they will not say, as was asserted from the Government's back benches a moment ago, that all this was understood and agreed by their predecessors. It was not. But in any event that would be no reason why the House, in the light of all the information that it now has, should make and approve such a decision.
Nor would it do for the Government to claim against the clear and appalling evidence of the Clause that it does not mean what it says, that there is some magic in the practice of the Community—the alleged veto that we had so little time to discuss yesterday, or some other device—which cancels out these provisions. There is no such device. Nor can they say, for they do not have the gall to say it, that they have the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the British people. The latest polls, in spite of all the propaganda to which the nation has been subjected, show that the nation remains resistant. Its heart is not in it and its will is against it.
This is one of the most fateful votes that we or any of our predecessors are likely to take. In voting today we have to think not only of the arguments for and against the Clause but of the wider repercussions the Clause will have for our democracy and on our national future. Parliamentary democracy, and with it the widespread acceptance of peaceful change and respect for the law is among the greatest benefits we possess. These are things we have inherited and things that successive generations have defended and preserved. It is a terrible responsibility on us to renounce for the future so much of so much value. It is a terrible offence, as I see it, to do it against the wishes and without the consent of those who sent us here.
We are voting today not simply or even primarily about whether we should join the European Communities on the terms so disastrously negotiated. We are voting as well about whether we shall continue to be a Parliament worthy of the name.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The problems which are worrying me arise directly out of the Amendments which were considered by the Committee last night. I was grateful then for the help from the Government Front Bench, particularly from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in considering Clause 2(5). However, my hon. Friend's answers raised further problems in my mind. It is provided that the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not be restricted by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and may make certain provisions in line with the preceding provisions of Clause 2.
I accept what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, in summing up, that it is the Government's intention to restore Parliament to Northern Ireland. But what happens if a Government come into power who disagree with some of the Common Market requirements? How far does the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament extend over Northern Ireland in this respect? I am thinking particularly of local legislation in Northern Ireland which restricts the right of movement of labour. The legislation was enacted because of high unemployment, a situation which has been seriously aggravated by the recent disturbances in the Province. What will happen if the position deteriorates, as well it might? What will happen if there is no great fillip to industry in the United Kingdom from joining the Common Market, or even if there is some impetus given to industry in Great Britain but this does not extend to Northern Ireland, so that in five years' time the problem remains as intransigent as it is today? What will happen if the Government of Northern Ireland disagree with the Westminster Government over the enactment of certain provisions required by our joining the Common Market?
Would it not be appropriate or necessary to amend the Government of Ireland Act in this Bill so that the Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate for Northern Ireland on such points? The legislation safeguarding the employment position will be reviewed, and we hope renewed, at the end of a five-year transitional period. I am concerned, however, that there might be a change of Government in this country, bringing with it, perhaps, people less sympathetic to the position of Northern Ireland, people who are not prepared to extend the exceptions at present provided in favour of Northern Ireland. It was for that reason that I pressed earlier that the matter should be incorporated in a protocol. I remain disappointed that it was not properly regulated in a more permanent way than by simply a subsidiary agreement.
5.30 p.m.
I am also concerned about the effect of other matters on Northern Ireland, which arise directly from the passing of the Measure and particularly the implementation of the Clause. I am concerned

about the help Northern Ireland will receive if Britain joins the Common Market. We have suffered drastically from the recent disturbances. 
First, many businesses have been destroyed and burnt out. The damage is continuing at a ferocious pace, and it will take a long time to re-establish and rebuild the businesses concerned. Some have gone for good. Secondly, in Northern Ireland we have a difficult unemployment problem, which arises not only from automation, in common with the rest of the United Kingdom, but from the peculiar difficulties of our agriculture and heavy industries, such as shipbuilding, which have been run down to a certain extent. We have had to attract new industry to the Province and create 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs each year just to keep pace with the run-down of the traditional industries. In the past two or three years very little new industry has been coming in, and it is not likely that in the immediate future we shall attract much new industry to Ulster. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will say how he expects the Treaty to help deal with the problems peculiar to the Province. 
Many fears and anxieties are expressed in Ulster, particularly about the future position of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. A Secretary of State, responsible to this House, has been appointed. This matter might be dealt with more completely by my right hon. and learned Friend when he sums up. It is expressly covered not only by subsection (5), the permissive subsection, but by Schedule 2. I should like further clarification of the posititon, first, in the immediate future—the period between 1st January and the restoration of the Parliament of Northern Ireland—and, secondly, in the longer term. What will be the position with respect to Northern Ireland if Britain does accede to the Treaty of Rome? What provisions are to be made to cover the requirements of those who live in Northern Ireland concerning employment and social conditions? These are all matters which have not yet received the full attention of the Government Front Bench. If something can be said to clarify the position, it will help those Ulster Members who are taking part in and following the debate.

Mr. Harold Lever: I hope the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him into what to me are the labyrinthine by-ways of Northern Ireland anxieties. I am rather more concerned with the anxieties of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). What we are discussing is, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, a matter of great importance, the principle of the assimilation of law between this country and the countries of the Community. We are discussing also the way in which effect should be given to that principle. On the way in which effect should be given to the principle, I have no differences whatever with my right hon. Friend. We can and must devise, and I think the Government will in the course of time be able to devise, ways in which the supervision by Parliament of the on-going assimilation of law can be more effective and make the voice of the House effective. Therefore, I shall record at the conclusion of this debate my dissent from the way in which the assimilation of laws is so far to be supervised.
I agree with everything said by those anxious to preserve the rights of the House on the need for a careful review of the scant provisions here made for the on-going supervision of this assimilation. But I should not like any hon. Member to believe that I give the smallest support to any of the complaints about the assimilation of law itself which is to take place and which it is the intention of this Clause to implement, albeit in a way which can and must be improved upon. I believe passionately that this assimilation of law is not only necessary in order to enter the Community but that it marks a great step forward in the achievements of mankind in seeking to regulate its affairs as between nations.
There are two equal and opposite errors that creep into this discussion, and it might help those of my hon. Friends who disagree with me to know that the error is equally on the pro-Marketeer side as on the anti-Marketeer side. There are those on both sides who believe that this groping by mankind to some better method of achieving the expression of national sovereignty is itself the abandonment of all national sovereignty. That can be regarded as either glorious or evil according to the particular aspect of one's

delusion. I do not believe this is the case. I think that what is being done here, painfully and gropingly, and still at its beginning, is an effort by mankind in Western Europe to make nationalism in its legitimate expressions tolerable and effective. The whole of the history of this century has been that the form in which nationalism existed but imperfectly took into account that mutuality of interest of nations which in itself is a supreme national interest in modern circumstances.
We could go on for centuries with an adequate expression of national sovereignty, before we had all our destructive toys of one kind and another, in which we intermittently murdered each other and raped each other's countries, and in between this intermittent murdering of each other's citizens we could continue happily to seek to encompass each other's ruin. All this was possible in a bygone age. It is no longer possible in the modern age for a legitimate sovereignty to find expression unless it is in a context which takes into account the heretofore neglected and vital national interest of the mutuality of nations'interests—that is, which takes into account the needs of others, they at the same time taking into account our needs.
I do claim not that the European Economic Community represents an accomplished achievement of a magic formula to bring about this total step forward, but that it is a clear step in the direction of recognising that national sovereignty, as we have so painfully and bloodily learnt, if it continues in its present expression can only be to our destruction and ruin and that we must evolve some machinery—I believe this is the hopeful beginnings of that machinery—to set national sovereignty in a viable context, which takes into account the whole of national interests. That includes the interests of our neighbours and forcing them in turn to take into account our interests.
I am by no means abandoning my concept of national interest. In supporting the assimilation of law I am seeking to develop the means which will permit the continued legitimate expression of national interest without defeating its own object. Otherwise we will end up, if we stay with this narrow view of national


interest, which takes no account of mutuality, in rather the same way as the quarrelling family who, when their rich parent has died, are so determined to exact each his own maximum national interest that they continue the litigation for a period long enough to destroy the entire estate.
Europe has given evident signs of being in something like that situation. The family national interest must be recognised to be part of the individual's interest too. Therefore we have to find a means of running the two together and we ought to be bending all the goodwill of people like my right hon. Friend, the Member for Stepney who is certainly not a "Little Englander" or a chauvinist to dealing with the errors that have been made to developing what is necessarily, in its early stages, imperfect, into something more perfect.
I want to tell my right hon. Friend that one not altogether impartial colleague in the Committee rejects each of the three pillars on which he propounds his opposition to this Clause, other than the mechanics which I have already mentioned. He first of all alleges that there is authority for saying that this will bind future Parliaments—authority worth taking into account. Secondly he says that this is part of a commitment to a programme to create a sovereign State, the precise nature of which we have not had disclosed to us. Thirdly he says that by passing this Clause we will be abandoning national sovereignty over certain substantial areas which will be affected by existing and new regulations of the Community.
Let me take these three points in order. It is not true that my right hon. Friend's fears about binding future Parliaments can be justified. This must be accepted, that if Parliament wishes it can rescind an Act of Parliament. What then are we doing in enacting this? We are entering into an international commitment, affirming our intention to observe it scrupulously by agreeing that the commitment shall automatically become the law of our country and the law of each and every other country that is a party to the Treaty. It would for example, have been an equivalent if, when we signed GATT we had been in sufficiently intimate confidence with all the nations of GATT, and I hope one day we might be, that the

Treaty and the many regulations made under it became law, automatically, in our country. They are not law.
The effect of this is that for the first time we are signing a treaty when, without further formality what we have committed ourselves to do will automatically and without any specific Act of Parliament be made the law of our land. That is all. We have agreed to become members of the Community; we have agreed that these specific areas should be dealt with in a certain way, and we have agreed that when these regulations are made, except for the occasions when affirmative Resolutions are required and so on, we have agreed in principle that all of them shall become the law of the land, covering the area of the Treaty. Whether that is done by Resolutions or legislation or any other means, this is the nature of the commitment. I welcome that commitment because it means that the peoples of Europe, for the first time, have enough confidence in each other and enough knowledge of the needs of our century to realise that it is no longer enough to sign treaties where each signatory can be the judge without any challenge on what the treaty means—or when the only challenge is at angry meetings of the cosignatories from time to time, when everything is drowned in words and nothing can be legally and impartially decided. We have all agreed that what we have bound ourselves to do to each other shall become the law of our countries and that, whether we are implementing, our bond shall be decided by our own court.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

5.45 p.m.

The effect is not to create an irreversible abandonment of sovereignty. What it means is that all the signatories to the Treaty cannot renege on their obligations except by blatantly subverting the courts of their own country or, since these are countries where that is not so readily to be achieved, fortunately, by specific legislation to control the courts of their own country. It is quite false to proclaim that we are abandoning the right to control the British courts. What we are abandoning the right to do is to put our interpretation on our obligations irrespective of the true interpretation of


the obligation as given by the British courts. If we do not like it, we the British Parliament, now and at any time, can simply instruct the British courts by Statute about what our obligation is to be. If we do so, we will be blatantly breaking our pledged word under the Treaty. That is all it amounts to.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: When the Germans negotiated their way into the Six they also negotiated an annexe which in effect made Eastern Germany an associate member of the Common Market by proclaiming the doctrine of internal trade as applying to trade between the two parts of Germany. Why has no attempt been made by our Government even to talk about some such provision in our own case?

Mr. Lever: I fail to see the analogy. If my failure to see the analogy between this country and East Germany is a fault on my part I must stand condemned, but I cannot answer further.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman says that if this Parliament decides that it wishes to reverse what Europe has decided that would be a breach of our contract but still something which we are entitled to do. Is he quite sure that is correct? This Clause, as I read it, provides that the courts are to interpret any subsequent legislation which we may pass in a manner which is consistent with the laws in Europe. If we pass a law which is meant to repeal this Measure, if the judges interpret that in a manner consistent with this Measure it means that they must interpret that subsequent law as having no effect. How do we know that the judges will not interpret this in a manner which binds subsequent Parliaments?

Mr. Lever: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is absolutely ingenuous in his questioning and is not relying too much upon the lack of legal knowledge or patience to hear legal explanations of my hon. Friends. If Parliament passes an Act rescinding the Bill now before the House—assuming it passes—saying that the European Communities Act, 1972, is hereby rescinded, no judge could properly, without flouting his obligations as a judge, pay the slightest attention to the European Communities Act, 1972,

because counsel on the other side, if he were my hon. and learned Friend, would say to him, "My Lord, your Lordship appears to be unaware that the Act was rescinded only last week. Once the Act is rescinded all its provisions are of no effect and any oratory expended on them should be brought to a halt." If my hon. and learned Friend, in stating the proposition that once the Bill is enacted Parliament cannot rescind it wishes to debate that proposition at any length, it cannot be now.
I assert, and go on record as saying, that it is the elementary and unchallengeable law of this country that Parliament can rescind what Parliament has enacted, and that is the legal position. If Parliament rescinds this law—and I very much hope that it will not be desirable or necessary, but it has the power to do so—all these detailed provisions become so much waste paper, and we need not scrutinise them with any anxiety once they have been rescinded because it does not matter what is contained in the provisions; they have become null and void. If that is not unchallengeable law, I give up and will not seek to go into it further.
It is not true that we are ceding sovereignty or that there is anything irreversible or irrevocable about it. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that irreversibility was the crucial and fundamental basis of his anxieties. I cannot soothe him with any great authority on this, but since I spoke on the referendum issue, when he expressed this opinion, he has had the further assurance of M. Pompidou, who has confirmed that he, too, does not regard it as irreversible or in all circumstances irrevocable.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who also debated this issue with me when the referendum was discussed, might be consoled because he then admitted, contrary to the spirit of his question, that we could reverse it in law but he was troubled whether we could reverse it in honour. He argued that the basis on which we were going in was regarded by the people as irreversible; hence, it would be a breach of faith for us to reverse it. Now he knows quite authoritatively that M. Pompidou does not regard it as a breach of faith to hold my view about the reversibility of the Community, and


no member of the Community has contested the statement of M. Pompidou. I think we can safely say that the basis on which we are entering the Community is the one I have outlined.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is M. Pompidou a judge?

Mr. Lever: What I am saying is not that M. Pompidou is a judge but that he has stated publicly what I stated in the House at the time of the referendum debate, without dissent from any of his partners who might be expected to dissent if they held the view that what he was saying was the contrary of reality.
We all know the reality; it has been stated in the House over and over again, and it has been stated by M. Pompidou. None of us wants to reverse it—at least, none of those who see it as a hopeful development. I do not know which decision some of my hon. Friends will take. Will they say that it is a dreadful thing because it is irreversible, or will they, while we are debating it, say that it is a dreadful thing that it is irreversible and when we have passed it go round the hustings urging people to vote for them so that it can be reversed? They should tell me what their decisions are. I will tell them mine.
If an hon. Friend of mine thinks it is wrong—and he is perfectly entitled to take this view—that we should remain a member of the Community, he is entitled to urge and argue that even after the Bill is law. If he says that, never will I say to him that he is bound and committed and that it would be improper, legally and morally, to withdraw. I have to argue it on the merits now and hereafter.
It is absolutely wrong on the one hand, while we are debating it here, to hold before the public the bogyman of irreversibility. I take it that, if the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West really believes in this bogy he will be silent after the Bill becomes law and will cease his efforts to persuade his fellow countrymen to batter their heads against a statutory brick wall against which he warned them when it was going through Parliament. He has not the right—nobody has the right—to attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the public by arguing at this stage that it is a horror because it is irreversible while secretly

resolving, even though Parliament passes the Bill, to campaign round the country seeking to have it reversed. One should take up a position of integrity on this point, and I will. I will never argue to any of my countrymen that they are not free to reverse it.

Mr. Shore: I do not see why my right hon. Friend should make heavy weather of this point. The real difficulty is not in terms of what the House of Commons can do—any Measure passed here is reversible. On the contrary, I shall be the first to urge precisely that course on my colleagues. What I say is that it will be extremely difficult to reverse it after we have entered into the full Treaty obligations with all that means in the break-up of the other associations to which we belong. That is why it is a serious matter, and my right hon. Friend must not be frivolous.

Mr. Skinner: Cheap millionaire.

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is raising the debate to a new level of courtesy. Most of my hon. Friend's interventions seem to have as their main purpose the diminution of his own reputation. I should have thought that he would feel that he had accomplished sufficient in that direction not to insist on further interventions.
It does not lie in the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney to say that I am being frivolous when he has said today that it is said by authority that this Statute will be binding on future Parliaments. If my right hon. Friend will withdraw that, I will agree that the analysis I have made is not strictly necessary.
We must take into account that what we are doing here is entering the Community, which is an organisation of sovereign States designed to explore and organise the application of the sovereignty of its members to points of common interest. That is a great step forward and, for the reasons I have already given, I believe that we can perfect and advance that concept. It is a necessary step forward to the peace and prosperity of Europe.
I have often been moved by the sincerity of the opponents of the Clause and the Bill who have reminded us, quite


rightly, that we are trustees of the powers we have as Members of Parliament. They seem to have a bleak and inadequate view of what trusteeship involves. They say that we are trustees to hand back those powers intact. Yet we are more than that. We are trustees of these powers to deploy and use them in every way we can for the benefit of our people and coming generations. I do not believe in the narrow view that we are concerned only to deploy those powers as they have been deployed in the past and that that is our sole duty.
Our duty is to learn the grim lessons of the past, to look at the difficulties of the future and to raise our standards and our vision, as I believe the peoples of Europe are doing in entering into community together to seek their national interest in co-operation rather than in intermittent self-destruction and continuous injury to each other and to seek the highest common welfare of us all. That way lies safety. That way lies the right deployment of the powers of this Parliament in the interests of the people of the country and in the discharge of our trusteeship of those powers.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Adley: I am somewhat diffident in speaking after the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). The right hon. Gentleman has a way of putting things in the real world which enables us to understand, not the lawyers' world in which we are to enter, but the real world we are to enter in the Community. I hope it will not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman if I say that his speech—similar to the one he made on the referendum issue—put more clearly and lucidly than almost anyone else in the House of Commons the underlying philosophical reasons for our joining the Community. He explained the reality of our legal obligations and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) explained the legality of our obligations.
In the right hon. Gentleman's brief exchange with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, I felt that the hon. and learned Member was implying—and I agree with his implication—that the only way the other members of the Community can ensure that this

country follows to the letter of the law every obligation into which we are entering would be to send over tanks to make sure that we kept our part of the bargain. That is an unlikely situation.

Mr. Paget: There is always a revolutionary method of leaving. What I was saying was that there was no legal way.

Mr. Adley: I was dealing with the point implied by the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would require tanks to keep us to our obligations.
I was not in the House in 1939 when the House faced a major decision which split our ranks asunder, as has now happened on this great issue of entry into the Common Market. However, Members of the House then took a decision they thought to be right, a decision which they thought was in the interests of the people of this country. This is all that motivates me and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe that as a member of the EEC we can look forward to a better future.
I feel sorry for the pessimists. I feel sorry for the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), whose frequent use of the word "surrender" is not analogous with the sort of future that I envisage for this country.
I recall the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) saying in an earlier debate on the defence aspects of the treaty that this Bill would enable the Government to take major defence decisions without having to bring them before Parliament—decisions which were fundamental to the future defence of this country. I intervened to ask the hon. Gentleman in what manner Mr. Attlee brought legislation before the House of Commons before we acquired the atomic bomb. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to agree that he disagreed with that decision. This is not an inappropriate time to remind the Committee that the decision which we are taking in the Bill, though in many ways unique, is by no means without precedent in the way it affects our future.
Those who believe that it will be a disaster if Britain joins the Community will not at this stage change their view. I take the contrary view—the view that if we stay out we shall suffer from a growing cancer. I consider that Clause 2


embodies the act of faith which many of us feel we are taking in the Bill, and I support the Clause with great enthusiasm.

Mr. John Mendelson: The last two contributions have brought the Committee back to the importance of this debate in which we are being asked by the Government to part with this most important Clause.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) has left the Chamber. I make no point about his not being here at the moment but I wish to criticise his speech, which I thought was well below the requirements of a debate of this importance. He made a pitiful Second Reading speech and spoke wildly about people hating foreigners and all the rest of the rubbish. It showed clearly that he had neither studied the Bill nor paid attention to our debates about Clause 2. This is not untypical of some hon. Members who blow in from time to time and pay a brief visit, which clearly shows that they have paid no real attention to this legislation.
We all know that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is an acknowledged expert on a number of important subjects debated by Parliament. We all know about his book "Eastern Approaches" and appreciate his profound knowledge of the last war. However, it was clear from his pitiful speech this afternoon that he had done no work at all on this legislation. It is an indictment of a number of hon. Members who reach high standards in their normal contributions but show contempt when taking part in these most important national debates. This should be put on record before we vote on this important Clause. In contrast, those who have taken an active part in these debates have developed an argument which will stand up when in years to come the historian turns to these proceedings.
I wish to deal with one or two points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) who sits next to me in the House in more than one sense, no matter what disagreement we may have on this piece of legislation. My right hon. Friend is always heard with great respect by the Committee because of the way he puts his case and also because nobody would

ever accuse him of not studying the legislation. Therefore, he has come to his conclusions not because he has failed to do his homework but because he did not want to see certain things materialise that were put to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). That is the obvious conclusion I draw, knowing the high standard of work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham and the profound intellectual analysis that he always applies to all the legislation with which he is concerned, either in government or in opposition. Therefore, I must probe more deeply his reasons for coming to such erroneous conclusions on this Clause.
Clause 2 is the "guts" of this debate. It assumes that the United Kingdom is entering into a permanent new political body. Anybody who does not start from that point does no justice either to the Bill or to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney. That must be common ground before we enter into any discussion about irreversibility. We are making life far too easy for ourselves if we merely say "We can always reverse the process", with the rider that it is a well-known constitutional doctrine that Parliament can reverse anything. This is no answer. If this were a matter of appointing by legislation the manager of the English football team, I would go along with that sort of approach—although even in that sphere irreversibility would not appear to be easy. That is not what we are asked to do by the Government, and at least on this one rare occasion I seem to carry with me the Solicitor-General. I treasure the moment and I want to put it on record.
What we are asked to do in the Clause is to agree, first, that all the self enacting requirements in the Clause are right in themselves. The second proposition is as important as the first, in my submission, that it is inevitable that they must be put in this form if the country is to adhere to the Treaty of Rome. Those are the two propositions.
I will deal now with the Government. I have made one comment on my right hon. Friend's contribution. I will come to another in a moment. I deal first with the Government because, they are in charge of the legislation, however much my right hon. Friend may have his heart


in what they are trying to do. The Government are putting these two propositions to Parliament and to the country, and in my judgment it is on an examination of these two propositions that hon. Members must determine how they vote tonight. If they decide that the first proposition, the second or both of them are false or unnecessary, they ought to decide to reject the Clause.
I begin with the second proposition. All of us have friends and contacts in the six countries which now belong to the Community; some of us know Members of Parliament in those six countries, and occasionally we may know one or two Ministers, whom we have met at various international gatherings. There are many hon. Members present in this Committee who have such contacts. I also have contacts in a modest way. I cannot find one person whom I have known for 10 years or more, who has had a look at our legislation and who is already in the Community, who accepts the Solicitor-General's proposition that the legislation must be drawn in this way. I challenge him to defy that statement.
There are many people in the Parliaments and Governments of the Six who disagree in discussions of this subject on all sorts of matters. They disagree, for instance, about the national burden which would accrue to this country. They disagree on other things, but none of them disagrees in any of the discussions I have had that it had to be done in this way. They say that this is how our sovereign Government wanted to do it. They all say that. They say that the Government must have had their reasons. Nobody says that it was a requirement of the United Kingdom's adherence that it had to be done in this way. This is relevant evidence which ought to be before this country.
Secondly, on the same point of whether it had to be done in this way, I do not deal here with what I consider to be the rather petty point, although it must be brought up from time to time, that the Government do not want an Amendment which has to do with timetables and with the surrounding political struggle. I am not speaking about that at all. That is far less important. The Government have set out to resist any attempt to persuade them that some of the Bill's provisions

might usefully be changed from the point of view of the country, for reasons which they have never explained to the House or to this Committee.
There has not been one occasion when the Government have been in difficulty in trying to justify the precise way in which they have done it. I have watched, for instance, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who when he reaches such a point of difficulty says "That is one way of looking at it, and I look at it in this way", and then leaves it at that. I do not condemn the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that because as he has no rational explanation he does not want to tell us a blatant lie. So he tails off into insignificance and to incoherence when he reaches this point. I do not condemn him for that; I can understand it. A more dishonest man might have told us a huge lie at this stage and tried to get out of it. That is his difficulty. Therefore, we have never yet had a reasonable answer in such a situation.
6.15 p.m.
I turn to the first proposition, which I have left to the last, concerning the importance and significance of what we are asked to do in passing the Clause. I return to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend talked to us as Members about what we might say to the British people outside, either on the hustings or at ordinary meetings which will take place between now and the next General Election. It is wholly unrealistic to go to the people and say to them "We are asked to pass this Clause but, if at some time in the future Parliament does not like the consequences, we can pass a one-line Act saying that we shall abolish the lot." I cannot believe for one moment that when my right hon. Friend reads that part of his speech tomorrow he will regard it as a responsible suggestion for any Member of Parliament at any time.
I say in mitigation that my right hon. Friend was led away by a number of interruptions which the rest of us do not always suffer. That is why I say that when he reads his speech tomorrow he will probably find it wholly unworthy of his contribution at any time to advance a simple proposition. I do not call it irresponsible because I think it was an error of judgment on his part to say to right hon. Gentlemen on the Government


side, or to any Member on this side, that one must say that one can pass a simple one-line Act.
Then my right hon. Friend tried to put Members into the logical dilemma that if they are now concerned about this permanent aspect of legislation they could not at the same time argue the other aspect. Any Member who is not concerned about the permanent aspect of what the Government are putting to us is not doing his job as a Member of Parliament. The Government are saying to themselves all the time that this is something which should be permanent.
What my right hon. Friend is proposing will make life easy for him. I do not normally expect him to do that. He says that if there are such insuperable difficulties when we are in the Common Market, if we find that everything there is going against our national interests, every country can throw up the whole lot and say that it wants no part in it. That is not a serious way of discussing these propositions.
The underlying assumption of the legislation is that this is in the best interests of the people of this country, and it must be part of our debate to be persuaded to that proposition. We cannot say that that proposition has a great question mark against it and then go on debating as if it did not matter. That is the crux of the debate, that the Government say it is in the interests of the British people. If that feature is left out, there is no debate left. Even the lawyers who concentrate on the legal aspects occasionally have to come back to the "guts" of the debate, and the debate improves miraculously as soon as they do. I say this about the lawyers on both sides impartially.
I come now to my third point, which is a new one and has nothing to do with the speeches which have been made so far. It concerns what has happened since we began the Committee stage. There have been some weeks in which we have not debated the Bill, and we have all been able to refresh ourselves by going to Brussels, to Paris or to other places to listen to what was going on. I might perhaps ingratiate myself a little with the Solicitor-General if I report that I spent five days in Brussels staying at the Hotel Charlemagne which is only a stone's throw from the Marché Commun, as the

building is called, where all the administration takes place. At any rate, I ought to be somewhat refreshed and inspired by that experience. At any rate, I can disprove the allegations of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire that we who oppose this legislation are prejudiced against any of the five countries.
Whilst I was on the Continent I listened carefully to what was being said in some of the semi-official and official circles, because I happened to be there on the day when the unfortunate Foreign Secretary of Belgium, Mr. Harmel, was taking lunch with Mr. Pompidou in Paris. It was a difficult experience for the Foreign Secretary, I understand. He went there to discuss with the President some of the views of the Government of Belgium, small country though it is, about the proposed summit conference. It was announced in the serious Belgian papers on the eve of Mr. Harmel's departure for Paris that they would be important private conversations. To the shock of a good many officials, there were banner headlines the next day about how the President had made his statement at a luncheon that he offered to Mr. Harmel. I am not keen on interfering with the social life of the Belgian Foreign Minister. However, speaking for this country, I do not like to think of his being subjected to that kind of treatment.lb/>
What the French President did was to forget about private conversations and to issue an ultimatum to all the other countries concerned. However, no one but Mr. Harmel was there. I do not know whether the treatment would have been the same had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster been invited for lunch. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give us detailed accounts of his experiences. What the President said was "Unless serious progress is made, unless resolutions are accepted and unless problems are resolved before I ask you to come to Paris, I have no intention of maintaining my invitation".
At the moment a number of difficult problems are being discussed, and this is a third reason why I should be in favour of not proceeding with this part of the Bill now. There are important discussions concerning future economic policy and future monetary policy. As can be seen from the articles published in the


Financial Times this week, a large number of people who do not necessarily hold my point of view about the legislation are pointing again and again to these developments and suggesting that it would be better for Parliament to reconsider some aspects of this legislation in the light of them.
President Pompidou has shown that he is not a man who likes to wait around once he has made up his mind about what is in the interests of France. In my view it would be right and proper if the Government considered carefully whether in the light of all the circumstances it was not better to call a halt and to say that they do not want to commit this country to permanent large-scale changes until it can be seen more clearly what is demanded of us.
On these occasions the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster always says that it would be better if we were inside the Community before becoming involved in these discussions. I want to examine that argument briefly. President Pompidou does not accept the logic of it. He does not say "We will have you in Paris in October because once we are all there it will be easier to settle these problems". He feels that it is much more advantageous to France to settle these matters in advance. He does not accept that it is always wise to be inside first when there are difficult problems to settle. For that reason alone, I question the wisdom of the argument that is always advanced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.lb/>
Considering the momentous nature of the decisions that the Government ask us to take, it might be wiser to probe some of these matters in more detail while the legislation is still pending in the House of Commons. While the legislation is not passed, we have a powerful lever. When we speak about the true representation of the interests of the British people, is it not a good idea to tell the British people that there are very difficult matters that we want to probe and that meanwhile we shall hasten slowly? One way of doing that responsibly is to call a halt and to say that we are not parting with this Clause. We shall be able to see whether there is any better basis for the representation

of the national interests of the British people if we reject the Clause tonight.

Mr. Marten: I agree with the third and concluding point made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). It is one that I have made myself, though not in relation specifically to Clause 2. I have said in the House and in a letter to the Daily Telegraph that we should not have a Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill until after the summit conference, if there is to be one. If my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to a summit conference before the final stages of the Bill, he would have a strong card to play. He would be able to list our reservations to his fellow Prime Ministers, saying "We are not satisfied with this, this and this." I hope that regional policy would be one reservation, political institutions another and the movement of heavy Continental lorries in this country another. My right hon. Friend would be able to say "Unless we get satisfaction on all these matters, it is highly unlikely that the House of Commons will give our European legislation a Third Reading." If we did not get satisfaction, we could table Amendments for consideration on Report, following which we could see whether the Bill received a Third Reading. Frankly I do not believe that it would unless we got satisfaction on these matters.
The remaining two-thirds of the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone was directed to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), whom we welcome back to our debates. It is good to hear his views once again, though they might have been put slightly differently had the right hon. Gentleman been here in the meantime. However, they were refreshing to us all.
I take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about our being trustees. We have argued that as Members of Parliament we are trustees and have no right to give away the sovereignty of this Parliament. We feel strongly that we have no right to give away the powers proposed in the Bill until after there has been a General Election or a referendum. I know the right hon. Gentleman's views about a referendum. But certainly until the electorate has been consulted we feel that we have no right to divest ourselves of the powers put in trust to us.
As for the irreversibility of the legislation, the reality of course is that we can reverse it. It would be a breach of international law if we did but, assuming that we were foolish enough to go into the Common Market, we could reverse it. However, after a number of years we should have become so interlocked that we could not de facto get out although de jure we might be able to.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is not another consequence that people in industry and commerce would realise how valuable it was to be in the Community and would not want to come out for that reason?

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend talks about people in commerce. I am talking about ordinary people in the country, not about people like him who are in commerce.
The remark was attributed to President Pompidou that the decision was not permanent. In fact it was Mr. Lipkowski, who is Minister of State at the Quai D'Orsay, and not President Pompidou who said it. His reason was one of timing. However, if we proceeded along the federal path along which the Government are determined not to proceed, the position would be different and Mr. Lipkowski's remark would not be correct.

6.30 p.m.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) underlined the point that the country has no enthusiasm for the Bill, for entry into the Common Market or for Clause 2. There has been a curious stubborness about the reaction of the country to that proposition. In spite of all the money poured into propaganda to try to persuade the people, I am proud to say they are not genuinely persuaded about it. It might be a good thing—if we are to have a Select Committee on the election or selection of Members to the European Assembly—to have another Select Committee to examine the amount of money that has been spent on propaganda. In spite of all the propaganda, the country has no instinct for entry. It is this which the Government totally misunderstand. They misunderstand the instinct of the people over this matter.

The right hon. Member for Stepney asked why we are unnecessarily giving away sovereignty under Clause 2. Before answering that I should like to deal with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). He imputed certain views to those who are opposed to the Common Market. He referred to us as taking a narrow view and having an underdog attitude. That was the general impression I obtained.

Sir F. Maclean: I said that it seemed to me that most of the opponents of entry appeared to assume that when we entered we would always find ourselves in the position of underdogs taking orders from other people.

Mr. Marten: That was what I understood my hon. Friend to have said.
What will happen if we join the Common Market? After the playing of the necessary requiem, we as a nation will try to play according to the rules and obey the regulations. After a few years we shall suddenly realise that this does not pay off when we are up against the members of the Six. I would not say that with reference to the Scandinavians who might be joining with us, but certainly we shall be up against the 14 years of experience of the other six members. The British civil servants, for whom I have the greatest admiration, would be very hard put to it to cheat in the way that the Common Market members cheat as we have heard in these debates. As a nation we would get very frustrated about our inability to get on. I often wonder what will happen. Under this sense of frustration, the British people might well again become imperialists. This is something the Six should recognise. We have it in our blood to be a colonial Power. We have had many centuries of it. If we became frustrated we might look upon the other countries of the Common Market as within our colonial sphere.
We know that the Government are devoting great sums of money to spreading the English language throughout the Common Market. That is part of the deep-laid plot of imperialism, or colonial-Power behaviour, and is quite typical. The trade unions will gradually spread the "English disease" over there. Some British businessmen seriously believe that


they will do well and that there will be great takeovers by British business if we get into the Common Market. We are fully aware of our unique links with the United States. We are both English-speaking nations. I think we shall act as a bridge between the United States and the Common Market.
In that way we shall gradually achieve what I have always wanted. We shall break down the Common Market into being much more of a free trade area, which is the logical way things are developing these days. That is the aim of the Government. I am convinced they would not be stupid enough to join a Common Market having a common agricultural policy such as they have. It must be the fundamental aim of the British Government to break down the Common Market into a free trade area, bringing in the Commonwealth and the United States where there is no common agricultural policy. That is my argument to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire as the way I see the British people reacting if we join the Common Market.
May I give the reason why I want Clause 2 thrown out? Everybody probably knows why we want it thrown out. As it stands, it is unamended. It gives away unnecessarily too much of Parliament's power. I was not elected to the House of Commons for that purpose. The Government have refused the Amendments, even those moved in very moving terms by pro-Marketeers. The Government have turned down those very proper, sensible Amendments. Many of the points raised in the debate by those of us who are opposed have not been answered by the Government, because they could not answer them. That is proof beyond reasonable doubt that no Amendments to the Bill are to be accepted.
We shall have no Report stage. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) believes we are not going to have a Report stage because the Government want to get the House away on holiday. I think we had a reference to grouse shooting on 12th August. I cannot believe that to be the intention of the Government. It is not the intention of the Government to refuse

Amendments because they want to get away on holiday. That would not make sense.
In answer to the question why the Government are having no Amendments, I am beginning to wonder whether the Bill is framed purely to satisfy the demands of the Common Market. The Common Market knows the great reluctance of the people of this country to join. Its assessment could be that while the Six want us in the Market because they, like the French, want to get our agricultural market, they might fear the effects of a reluctant British Parliament if it was left with too much power. Part of the bargain for allowing us in is to weaken the power of the British Parliament and to ensure, by the form of the Bill, that we are properly weakened and tied down as political eunuchs before we go in.
On that basis Clause 2 is totally unacceptable. It should be rejected and brought back at Report stage, which I am sure we shall have, suitably amended, so that the House retains some power in these very important matters. The issue is not whether we go into the Common Market. It is an issue concerning the rights of Parliament and of the people in this country.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The first weakness of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) was that while he uttered many excellent and worthy sentiments with which we all agree they had little to do with Clause 2 or the Bill. We are already as a nation a member of a great many inter national organisations, and we all support that. Our objection to joining the European Economic Community is not that it is international but that it is undemocratic. My right hon. Friend seems entirely to have failed to understand this.
The second weakness of my right hon. Friend's speech was that he would have understood the Bill much better if he had attended our debate yesterday and, indeed, a good many of our previous debates on Clause 2. I believe that the debates on the Clause have been extremely valuable. The further they have proceeded, the more extraordinary, the more revolutionary and the more indefensible has the Clause been shown


to be. I hope that the House of Commons and the country now understand that the Bill not merely takes away the power to legislate for British affairs from the British Parliament, responsible to the British electorate, but places it in the hands of bodies not responsible to the British electorate or, indeed, to any one else, and does so in a way which is not even necessary in order to comply with the Treaty of Rome.
The Government, simply, it seems, on grounds of expediency and convenience, are almost casually sacrificing basic principles of our constitution and showing themselves at heart—and here one detects the attitude of the Prime Minister—more dictatorial than even the authors of the Treaty of Rome. Not merely does the Clause give away the British Parliament's law-making authority unnecessarily to irresponsible bodies, but yesterday's debate showed, as the Solicitor-General admitted, that the Bill declares invalid all British law which is inconsistent with Brussels law. In addition to that, it lays down that any future legislation of the British Parliament will be invalid if it conflicts with Brussels law. It would be for the courts, we were told, and not for Parliament to decide which law prevailed.
That is a grave and undeniable infringement of the most basic constitutional principle that a newly-elected Parliament is not and cannot be bound by the dead hand of its predecessors. To abandon this principle in this casual fashion in the face of all the accumulated experience of British history and, indeed, of Continental history, is an extraordinary course to take.
The Solicitor-General defended this extraordinary proposition on the ground that it is necessary in order to enter the EEC on these terms. Even that is not wholly true, but in so far as it is partly true that is precisely the reason why everyone in this country who really understands the issues involved is resolutely opposed to entry on these terms. These facts are also an overwhelming justification for those who say that no settlement or legislation of this kind can be constitutionally valid or binding unless it has secured the specific assent of the electorate.
But the sacrifice of fundamental democratic rights is, as yesterday's debate

showed, even more far-reaching than that. Here I come to my right hon. Friend's argument about irreversibility. The Solicitor-General attempted to argue yesterday that Parliament's future right to repeal the Bill, and therefore undo the whole mischief from the roots upwards, could not be impaired. I agree that constitutionally and morally Parliament's right to repeal the Bill cannot and must not be infringed in any way. What the Solicitor-General failed to show was that the Bill would not legally seek so to impair it.

Mr. Harold Lever: Hear, hear.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I ask my right hon. Friend to follow the argument. What would happen if the Bill were to be repealed by a future Parliament and then some legal person, perhaps from another member State of the Community, or from the Commission, contested in the Common Market Court the validity of that legislation on the ground that it was plainly inconsistent with the Rome Treaty? It would apparently be for the Court and not this Parliament to decide what is surely the most important political issue that could ever come before this country: whether to sacrifice for all time its national independence and the right of the British electorate to change the decisions of its predecessors.
I should have thought that we have had enough experience in the last few months of judges trying to take political decisions for us now to place the most important of all political decisions in the hands not of Parliament or of the electorate, but of judges. What judges would they be? What assurance have we—we did not get it from the Solicitor-General—that British legislation repealing the Bill could not be contested in the Common Market Court as inconsistent with the Rome Treaty? It could well happen, but it is something which would certainly be rejected by the vast majority of the electorate if they understood that what was involved was taking a decision on the whole future of this country out of the hands of the British electorate and placing it in the hands of a number of Continental lawyers, no doubt very learned and excellent men but hardly qualified to take a decision of this character.
My right hon. Friend posed a dilemma. Is membership of the Community reversible or not? The answer, I think, is simply that, under the British constitution, under the principle that no Parliament can bind its successor, it is reversible, but that under the Rome Treaty it is not reversible. Therefore this country would be placed in the position in which it could not reverse the decision or repeal the legislation without breach of the Rome Treaty.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Let us assume that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) are right and that Parliament can and the Community Court cannot. Will my right hon. Friend explain how we can legislatively unscramble scrambled eggs?

Mr. Jay: That is a further difficulty. What I am arguing—I do not think that any Minister has denied it—is that we could not repeal this legislation without being in breach of the Rome Treaty. The simple common sense of the matter is that when all the legal paraphernalia is stripped away, the Rome Treaty and this Bill—even more so—are wholly incompatible, indeed irreconcilable, with the principles and spirit of our parliamentary constitution, with representative Government and with the convictions of the mass of the British people. That is the conclusive reason why the Committee should reject Clause 2 outright.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: I believe that we have spent some time discussing the question of irreversibility partially because the phrase itself was misused by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). I do not believe he can have meant irreversibility, because it is clear that even with the difficulties which have been outlined by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) it is possible to reverse the Bill simply by passing a short Bill, such as was referred to by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). It is perfectly right to say that. But that is not really what the argument is about.
It may be that the Bill is so complicated and will effect such great changes in our society and in our connections with other countries that one cannot imagine a situation in which it would in practical terms be possible to reverse it. But that is not irreversibility. It is the difficulty of reversibility. It has often been claimed that it would be wrong to nationalise steel in such a way as to make it impossible to reverse that decision because in some senses that would limit future Parliaments in the decisions which they make That was not a reasonable argument for this side of the House of Commons to put forward then.
It is impossible to argue that because this is so important a Bill, because it is so far-sighted a Bill, because it is so effective a Bill, we should not pass it; that the House should not have the right to pass Bills which are of fundamental importance in case at some future time it might want to reverse them. That seems an unjustifiable argument. The argument that we must have is about the Clause and about its merits: whether it is worth while paying this price for the benefits which we believe we shall get from entering the EEC.
Those in favour of the Bill say that the kind of pooling of sovereignty which is entailed by the Clause is not only a price worth paying but is in itself a valuable and good thing. I belong to the section which says the second part of that with particular emphasis. Like the right hon. Member for Cheetham, I believe not only that this is the kind of move which we ought to have been able to make earlier but that it is of itself a realisation that the concept of national sovereignty as a fixed and immutable thing which may not be changed is thoroughly dangerous. Had it been held at the time of the Union with Scotland or, indeed, when the seven kingdoms joined together to become England, we should never have got either to England or to Great Britain.
It would be odd if suddenly, like some of the curious sects who believed that suddenly from the heavens dropped to Mary Baker Eddy or some other person the answer to the world's problems we had an answer which had not been seen before, and which meant at this point that


the nature of sovereignty should become immutable for all time.
I believe that the next step in national sovereignty is to exercise it in conjunction with our friends and neighbours so that the totality of sovereignty is very much greater than the parts which have made it up. Indeed it is very much like the parable of the talents. A gentleman was given one talent. He dug a hole and left it there, and nothing happened to it. At the end he pulled out the talent and presented it back saying "Look, I have kept it". That is what we would do if we were to say that our trusteeship of sovereignty means that we must not change it in any way, that we must not seek to allow it to grow and that we must not use it to meet the problems which face this country today. It would be odd if the nature of the sovereignty which was suitable in the nineteenth century was particularly suitable in the twentieth century or if the kind of sovereignty with which we faced the world of 1939 is the same as the sovereignty with which we hope to face the world in 1979.
I believe the Clause to be not just a necessary evil but an advantage, because it says at long last that we are not merely going to have pious hopes of being friendly with our neighbours but that with them we shall exercise greater sovereignty inside that community which we are joining.
The right hon. Member for Stepney suggested that either we wanted a customs union or a United States of Europe. He posed those two alternative possibilities as a result of the Bill and suggested that if we wanted a customs union we need not have the paraphernalia of the Clause. He suggested that the hidden reason for the Clause was in case in future we wanted some sort of sovereign State which brought in a sort of federal State in Europe.
I suggest that there is a third possibility: that what we seek here to do is to join a Community which is neither a static customs union nor a Community fixed on tramlines moving towards a federal Europe, but a Community which seeks to have enough freedom and independence to make its own future as an association of sovereign States. If in 20 or 30 years' time people decide that the association which they want ought to be

closer than that which has evolved from the decisions which we are making today, it will be for them to make that decision and I do not grudge them the right so to do. To suggest that at this point we ought to restrict for all time the relationship of this association in Europe to that of a customs union is not to be in the 1970s but to be back in the arguments of the 1950s and the European Free Trade Area as it was first suggested.
The right hon. Member for Stepney was proposing a Community which is not there. He was suggesting that if we wanted to found a Community, to set up an arrangement, this is the way we might do it; but that is not what the Bill and the Clause are about. The Bill is about the relationship of this country with a Community which exists and whose attitudes, forms and treaties have been arranged.
How sad it is that we did not join in that arrangement. Not having done so, however, it is living in cloud-cuckoo land to suggest, in the debate on whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill, how that Community might have arisen if we had happened to set it up. That is not what we are debating, and it is for that reason that the Committee ought to support the Clause, because what it does is not to pay a necessarily evil price for a benefit which we shall get but to give a chance to this new Community to form a new kind of relationship inside which we shall exercise our national sovereignty to the greater good of our people, to the greater good of Europe and, I believe, to the greater good of the world.

Mr. Michael Foot: It would be tempting to continue the debate which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) has pursued, and which was partly initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), on some of the international consequences which might follow if we join the EEC. Certainly we on this side of the Committee are not deterred from doing that but we should like to do so on other occasions because we have more immediate matters with which to deal.
I believe that liberty begins at home, and it is liberty at home that we have to protect. I must say in passing that anyone who imagines that the internationalist


influence rests with those who are in favour of entering the Common Market can scarcely have studied the debates at Santiago, where a different state of affairs was revealed.
We are dealing with this Clause today, and it is essential for us not to be distracted from it because we have very little time for our debate. Despite the fact that we are taking action that will affect our international position we have to operate under a domestic guillotine. We have to debate the Bill and discharge our duties in a situation in which the House of Commons has been denied the right to deal with essential matters which arise under a Clause the like of which has never before been proposed to the House, a Clause which proposes to transfer powers from the House on a scale never before suggested, in a manner never before devised, with consequences which have scarcely received the proper examination which they merit, even in the hours of debate that we have had.
Although we on this side, with others from other parts of the Committee, have sought to examine and discuss the Clause, one part of it which we have not been able to discuss in any detail and which has far-reaching ramifications deals with subordinate legislation.
7.0 p.m.
It has always been one of the primary concerns of the House of Commons, particularly in the past 30 or 40 years when subordinate legislation has grown at such a pace, to insist on arrangements for dealing with subordinate legislation and to see what that legislation might mean. There was a famous clause, the so-called Henry VIII Clause, which led to the controversies over Lord Hewart's new despotism and the rest. I draw the attentiton of the Committee to a part of the Clause which we have hardly had a chance to examine under the operation of the guillotine, lines 5 to 10 on page 3, which reads:
in the exercise of any statutory power or duty, including any power to give directions or to legislate by means of orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument, the person entrusted with the power or duty should have regard to the objects of the communities and to any such applications or right as aforesaid.
That is a wide sweeping proposition. What will be the effect upon it when

the judges have to take it into account? Under the laws of the land, under the way that this country's constitution operates, the judges have power not only to administer the law but to decide whether Ministers are going beyond the powers given them by Parliament. Under that wide-ranging provision, as I read it, judges or Ministers would be able to argue in the courts that they were taking into account the wide-ranging interests of the Community, and that they could take that factor into account in dealing with the exercise of any statutory power or duty.
As I have said before, we had a clause of this character years ago which was called the Henry VIII Clause. This Clause should be called the Louis XIV Clause. It offers such widely embracing protection for the Minister that it greatly enlarges the capacity of the Minister, the Government or the Executive, under the proposals of the Bill, to carry much further the way in which they introduce subordinate legislation, and to reduce greatly the way in which the judges can examine whether they are acting according to the law which has been laid down by the House or going beyond it.
The principal debate on the Clause, although it touched the previous Clause as well—I am glad I have the absent support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, which I do not want to disturb in any way—has been concerned with whether it was necessary for the Government to take the far-reaching, far-ranging powers they have taken in the Clause to achieve their objectives. In a sense, the principal argument which we have been debating is whether it was necessary for such wide-ranging powers to be taken to secure entry into the Common Market.
Some hon. Members now present did not attend our debates. Therefore, it is necessary for us to recall some matters on that account. What happened before we proceeded to the Committee stage is something which I scarcely recall happening on such a scale on any previous occasion in the House of Commons. We spent about two days examining the kind of Amendments which would be tolerable, acceptable and possible. I am sorry to return to this argument which we have discussed before. I hope that I will not


be accused of labouring it, but it is absolutely relevant to whether the Government required to take these powers in this way to achieve their purpose.
The Government's argument, to use the appalling word used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the debate on the financial part of the Clause, subsection (3), is that it is the automaticity of the matter which is involved. That has been the argument of the Government in defence of the action they have taken on each of these subsections. It is because of the automaticity of the measures which are involved in the Treaty of Rome and the measures which they have bound themselves to take that it is not permitted under the Bill to have the proper parliamentary processes of examination, enactment and so on.
The Government claim that all these provisions are necessary and that all our Amendments must be ruled out because of the necessity of automaticity.
The first reason why that is disproved is because of the debates and the ruling which we received in the Committee stage which governs this Clause as well as Clause 1. The ruling of the Chair at the beginning of our debates was that it would exclude from selection and debate all the Amendments which might upset the Treaty of Accession or the other treaties. The only Amendments the Chair has allowed us to debate are those which do not raise automaticity. The Chair has ruled that all the Amendments it would select would be those that would not upset the Treaty of Accession or the other treaties to which we have bound ourselves. The Chair has ruled that all our Amendments laid down perfectly reasonable and proper alternative methods of achieving what the Government had concurred with.
I can see that the Government might have objected to that ruling. We objected to it, but the Government did not. They accepted it. Having done so, they cannot say "All your Amendments had to be rejected because they would have upset the automatic operation of what was laid down in the Treaty of Rome.:
There is a second and more profound parliamentary reason why the idea of automaticity should be rejected by the British House of Commons. Automaticity means that the House of Commons shall

be deprived of any say in the matter. That is the constitutional meaning of automaticity. I wonder whether the point was ever put to President Pompidou or President de Gaulle. If anybody had said to President de Gaulle, possibly even to President Pompidou, "Your country, by signing the Treaty of Rome, will have to agree to many measures which automatically must come into operation in France. Automaticity will govern the situation", President de Gaulle would have repudiated that doctrine with great severity.
The British Parliament should be as jealous of its parliamentary rights as President de Gaulle was about his presidential powers. However, that is apparently not the case. Lots of people in British history would have been in favour of automaticity. It is an idea which would have greatly appealed to Charles II, James II, George III or anybody else who wanted to undermine, corrupt or suborn the British Parliament. Automaticity means denying to the House of Commons rights that we thought were ours.
On the basis of automaticity I remind the Committee that each successive Minister has defended what he is doing in this Clause in subsections (1), (2) and (3)—the tax power—and (4), which we discussed yesterday, by saying that it is due to automaticity, which, as I have said, should be rejected partly because the ruling of the Chair should have forbidden any such appeal to any such idea and partly because any elementary respect for the rights of Parliament should have ruled it out.
There are still further practical reasons, rightly and strongly argued in my opinion by my hon. Friend the Member for Peni-stone (Mr. John Mendelson). If constitutional and parliamentary sense will not appeal to the Committee, what about practical reasons? What about saying that we have some rights which we can use, exert, and retain to secure a better bargain from our partners in Europe? I do not want anyone to tell me that I must not be so practical and realistic to demand that we should think of anything as demeaning and undignified as bargains in dealing with M Pompidou or any of his Ministers.
Take, for example, what was said in a New Zealand newspaper on 29th May.


This is a quotation of what happened and then or what was said by the French Minister. The report reads:
The opposition of the Federation of Labour to the French nuclear tests in the Pacific would not be silenced by political blackmail from France, said the federation's secretary (Mr. J. Knox) tonight.
The report goes on to describe that, because the Federation of Labour spokesman in New Zealand had protested against the proposed Pacific tests being undertaken, they had had a threat from M. Pierre Messmer, the French Minister for Overseas Territories in Noumea, who recently made the statement:
We must not forget that New Zealand is on the asking side. At the time of Britain's entry into the Common Market she (New Zealand) came on her knees to beseech us to allow her to go on exporting to Britain. We have condescended to grant New Zealand guaranteed exports to Britain for a period of five years. If New Zealand now refuses to export to France, this limit of five years could be reconsidered and reduced and we could look at the application with disfavour.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who is blackmailing whom?

Mr. Foot: Who is blackmailing whom, certainly. But suppose a French Minister says, "Of course, the whole proposition of the Common Market is reversible if we do not secure the terms we want." Do not let anybody tell me that a French Minister would not use a threat of that kind. That was exactly how the common agricultural policy was founded. Would it not be advisable to retain in our power in the House of Commons certain rights—elementary rights as some of us believe—which we could use in this situation over the coming months?
We are told that there are to be summit meetings to discuss matters which will affect not only the price of food, tremendous as that issue is and the levels of unemployment, tremendous as they are, but the whole economic future of this country, such as whether we can devalue our currency. All these matters are to be discussed at a summit meeting. But before we go to the summit meeting, the Government are demanding in the Clause that we should not merely give away elementary powers which we think are necessary in any circumstances, but should sign, seal and deliver our situation before the bargain is concluded. We have

to tolerate the situation that M. Pierre Messmer can make these threats about New Zealand, and all the rest, without any remedy being available to us.
The Clause is abandoning elementary rights which we thought were ours at a time when many people did not appreciate what the situation was before the Bill was concluded. We are doing this against a background where the people of this country, so far from falling in with the Government, appear to be moving in the opposite direction, if any way at all. I am not a believer in Gallup Polls or public opinion polls at any time—I have said that whether they are for or against me—but, at any rate, I should think that a poll would show a little movement in their direction.
7.15 p.m.
What are the Government proposing to do? They are proposing to go ahead with this abandonment of parliamentary rights at a time when the majority of the people are saying that it is against their wishes that we should enter the Community because it is, in their belief, against their interests.
How does the Prime Minister explain such a situation? As I said at the beginning of some of these debates, does this refusal by the British people to accept the Government's arguments, even though they have all the megaphones of propaganda available to them, mean that the British people are stupid? The Government, on a matter so momentous as this, should show a little deference to the sentiments and ideas of the British people, particularly when they are proposing in Clause 2 to take away from this Parliament, on a scale that has never previously been proposed, powers of decision and sovereignty.
The word "sovereignty" does not enchant me. Sovereignty is concerned with democracy. Sovereignty is concerned with the rights of decision of the House of Commons and the rights of decision of the British people. This Parliament should never agree to the Clause, because the British people have never had the chance even to discuss the meaning of it. If, even at this hour, the House of Commons were to assert itself and say, "We will not have it", it would mean a great upsurge of democratic strength in this country.
We will not accept a situation where the Government say that not merely our Amendments, but every Amendment proposed by hon. Members on both sides, will be ruled out. The Father of the House and some most respected Conservative Members have put down Amendments on similar lines to some of our Amendments, though perhaps for different reasons, but the Government say that all of them will be ruled out. Why? Not because they think, on their merits, we have not been able to argue them. It is solely because of the exigencies of the Government's parliamentary timetable. That is a fine reason, is it not, for taking away the rights of the House of Commons in defiance of the wishes of the British people? If a Government do that for such squalid reasons, they will only add to the offence, to the fury, and to the continued and persistent opposition that they will meet against what they have proposed and which the people of this country will still dispose of in their own proper time.

Mr. Rippon: As was said yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), it frequently happens on a "Clause stand part" debate that many of the points have been made previously. I think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will be the first to concede that he has made his points before, starting with his misunderstanding of the Chairman's ruling on what was or was not in order.
In our debates on Clause 2 we have considered a wide range of Amendments and topics. We have spent six and a half days, over 50 hours, examining the various subsections of the Clause. It is proper to have done that, because the Clause is undoubtedly right at the heart and centre of the Bill.
It has always been inherent in our acceptance of the treaties that we should have to pass legislation in this form. We are exercising our rights and responsibilities as Members of Parliament in a parliamentary democracy. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is continually telling us about the affront we represent to the views of the British people. The hon. Gentleman means that we do not accept his views. We are a parliamentary democracy. We have all said in our

election addresses and debates in the country and in the House that when the time comes to judge whether we should join the Communities, after the terms have been negotiated, it would be a matter for each Member of Parliament to make his own decision. I should think the hon. Gentleman was rather more of a parliamentary democrat if he allowed more freedom of expression by some of his own back benchers. It is no good the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale claiming to speak, in the extravangant language he uses, with the full-hearted consent of the whole of his party.
Of course it is right that there have been critical and probing debates in which those on both sides who have anxieties have questioned the need for this Clause. We have gone through it subsection by subsection. As the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, this is the opportunity to consider the totality and to review the position as it is now.
It would be ungenerous at this stage not to pay tribute to the Chairman and to hon. Members on both sides who have endeavoured to keep their contributions as crisp and relevant as possible No one doubts the quality of the debates that we have had on this Clause. The right hon. Member for Stepney began our debates by asserting that we were starting
to consider the extent to which we in Britain shall cease to be self-governing if we enter the European Communities on the basis on the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 1309.]
He asked about the wider transfer of political power, about Parliament ceasing to be sovereign and the country ceasing to be independent in important areas of policy.
That aspect of the debate has been dealt with effectively today by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). As he said, it is extraordinary to campaign on reversing what one claims to be irreversible. We have had very full debates on this absurd allegation about the loss of parliamentary sovereignty. This has been dealt with over and over again today and previously. We come back again to the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Shore: Just before we reach the Leader of the Opposition, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree, whatever may be the argument about


sovereignty, which is almost metaphysical, as we have discovered, on the argument about effective parliamentary control, there is no question about the nature or the extent of the transfer of power?

Mr. Rippon: We have had an argument about the general loss of sovereignty and a great deal of anxiety has been caused in the public mind by the manifestly wild allegations which have been repeated today by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
The matter was put in perspective by the right hon. Member for Cheetham—

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Rippon: No, I had better not give way.
The Committee is aware that there is no question in our membership of the Communities or in this Bill of our relinquishing ultimate parliamentary sovereignty. But there is a question to which the Committee will recall I have drawn attention on a number of occasions. That is, how Parliament may best be able to bring its influence to bear on Community matters, and particularly on instruments in the making. On Second Reading I suggested that we might have an ad hoc Committee to consider how we could deal in practical terms with the legislation which would be coming before us. I spoke again this afternoon about the ways in which we could ensure that we had a properly constituted and effective delegation at the European assembly.
These are fundamental matters of practice, but we have to accept, as we had to accept it from the debates on 8th May, 1967, that it was inherent in our membership of the Community that we would have to accept the treaties and what flowed from them and that we should have to make provision in our domestic law for Community law to have direct effect in this country. That is what the Clause does and that is what we have been debating over the last six days.
A number of particular points were raised in the debate which we may have some further opportunities to discuss, but with which I cannot deal in the five minutes left to me. But I should like to take up the point made by my

hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). To some extent, he was referring to the terms negotiated when he asked why we had not included in a protocol provision for the permanent maintenance of the Northern Ireland Employment Act.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

We have had some discussions and correspondence about this and I know my hon. Friend's great interest in the matter. As with other matters in relation to the Clause and other parts of the Bill, it is important to look not so much to the form as to the substance of the agreements that we have negotiated. We have had to negotiate on the basis of our adherence to the treaties and our acceptance of their provisions. Therefore, for the most part, we have negotiated and had to negotiate in derogation from the Treaties. We have said that transitional arrangements will, for the most part, be sufficient. But we put down very clear markers about the extent to which our vital national interests were concerned with regard to, say, New Zealand, sugar, fisheries and the Northern Ireland Employment Act.

So I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that there is no difficulty about the position up to 1977, and we have made it perfectly clear that we may need to revert to this and provide for an extension of the Safeguarding of Employment Act, 1947. This is well understood by the Community and I think that we are in a good position to defend our interests in that regard.

Mr. McMaster: My worry is about what happens if there is a change of Parliament and with a change of Parliament a change of intention on this.

Mr. Rippon: That makes the point which we have been making during these debates—if there is a change of Parliament, there can be a change of policy. My hon. Friend should make sure that there is not a change in the majority in this House. I can assure him that we are determined to safeguard his position.
On the constitutional point, there will be a further opportunity to debate this matter on Clause 4 and Schedule 2. Meanwhile, I hope that my hon. Friend will be sufficiently satisfied tonight by a firm assurance, which I willingly give,


that nothing in the Bill affects the basic constitutional position of Northern Ireland, either at present or in normal times. My hon. Friend dealt with this matter at considerable length yesterday, and I hope that that is satisfactory. That is a practical point which has arisen out of today's debate.
I think that I can fairly say that all the other speeches have largely raised the same issues with which we have dealt at one time or another during the debates on these six days. We have had our debates on sovereignty, on the direct effect of Community law in this country, on immigration and on regional policy. We have had a debate which has enabled hon. Members on both sides to raise their anxieties as fully as they could

reasonably wish. There comes a point when the mere repetition of the fact that one is for or against a particular policy becomes a rather tedious repetition.

We have been debating today the most important Clause of the Bill. As a whole, it neither adds to nor subtracts from its parts. It is simply the sum of those parts, the sum of its subsections—no more and no less. There is very little that one can say in a debate of this kind, other than that I hope the Committee will now agree that the Clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 296, Noes 288.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempslead)
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Astor, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Haselhurst, Alan


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Havers, Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hawkins, Paul


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Hayhoe, Barney


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Heseltine, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks, Robert


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Higgins, Terence L.


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh
Hiley, Joseph


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Blaker, peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Holt, Miss Mary


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Fidler, Michael
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hunt, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Iremonger, T. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fortescue, Tim
James, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Foster, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Buchanan-smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Fowler, Norman
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Burden, F. A.
Fry, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gardner, Edward
Jopling, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Channon. Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kershaw, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kimball, Marcus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Churchill, W. S.
Gorst, John
Kinsey, J. R.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gower, Raymond
Kirk, peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Gray, Hamish
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Cooke, Robert
Green, Alan
Knox, David


Coombs, Derek
Grieve, Percy
Lambton, Lord


Cooper, A. E.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lamont, Norman


Cordle, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lane, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold
Le Marchant, Spencer


Critchley, Julian
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)





Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil
Steel, David


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Peel, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langslone)
Percival, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Loveridge, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stokes, John


Luce, R. N.
Pink, R. Bonner
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter


MacArthur, Ian
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McCrindle, R. A.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McLaren, Martin
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tebbit, Norman


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Temple, John M.


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thomas Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Madel, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tilney, John


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Trafford Dr. Anthony


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Trew, Peter


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Waddington, David


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Patrick


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Money, Ernie
Rost, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Royle, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


More, Jasper
Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilkinson, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sharples, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Morrison, Charles
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mudd, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Murton, Oscar
Simeons, Charles
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodnutt Mark


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Normanton, Tom
Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'minaton)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Nott, John
Soref Harold
Younger, Hn. George


Onslow, Cranley
Speed Keith



Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Spence, Jonn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Osborn, John
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor



Page, John (Harrow, W.)




Pardoe, John




NOES


Abso, Leo
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Dunn, James A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dunnett, Jack


Allen, Scholofield
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Archer, peter (Rowley Regis)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edwards, William (Merloneth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ellis, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Cohen, Stanley
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Fred


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
Ewing, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
Farr, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cronin, John
Fell, Anthony


Baxter, William
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fitch Alan (Wigan) 


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Fitt Gerard (Belfast) W.


Biffen, John
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fletcher Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Foley, Maurice


Body, Richard
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney. C.)
Forrester, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bradley, Tom
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Garrett, W.E.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, Hugh
Gilbert, Dr. John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Golding, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow,Sp'burn)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Doig, Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire. E)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Cant, R. B.
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)




Hamling, William







Hardy, Peter
McManus, Frank
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMaster, Stanley
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maginnis, John E.
Roper, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rose, Paul B.


Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hooson, Emlyn
Marks, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Horam, John
Marquand, David
Sandelson, Neville


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Huckfield, Leslie
Marten, Neil
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spearing, Nigel


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward
Spriggs, Leslie


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stallard, A. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


John, Brynmor
Molyneaux, James
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, James, (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strang, Gavin


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Taverne, Dick


Jones,Rt.Hn.Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Murray, Ronald King
Tinn, James


Judd, Frank
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tomney, Frank


Kaufman, Gerald
Oakes, Gordon
Tomney, Tom


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


Kerr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Kilfedder, James
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Oram, Bert
varley, Eric G.


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Edwin


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Stanley
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lamond, James
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Latham, Arthur
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Leadbitter, Ted
Padley, Walter
Wallace, George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, David


Leonard, Dick
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Weitzman, David


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Lomas, Kenneth
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilson, Alexender (Hamilton)


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McElhone, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


McGuire, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)



Mckenzle, Gregor
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Mackie, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Mackintosh, John P.
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Maclennan, Robert
Richard, Ivor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Sir Robert. As we have the attendance of the Prime Minister here and as the Government have achieved such a derisory majority on a matter on which the Prime Minister promised he would proceed only if he had the full-hearted consent of Parliament.—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order, The hon. Gentleman,I am sure, will not seek to make a political point on a point of order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Foot: A statement could have been volunteered by the Prime Minister. There have been numerous occasions in the history of the House when a Government, particularly one with a majority sufficiently large to enable it to get a Bill through, have suffered a dramatic fall in their majority such as we have seen tonight and have been called upon to


make a statement about their intentions. I ask therefore—

The Chairman: I am well seized of the hon. Member's point. It is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Government to decide for themselves, and there is nothing that the hon. Member can do to help the matter by addressing me.

Mr. Foot: Sir Robert—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Shame.

The Chairman: Order. I hope hon. Members will leave the Chamber quietly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Name them, name them!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Loughlin: Name them!

The Chairman: Order. Clause 3—

Mr. Michael Foot: I asked on my previous point of order that the Prime Minister, since he was here, should make a statement on a matter of such significance. I can recall many occasions in the history of the House when the Government have suffered such a dramatic effective defeat as this. The Government should volunteer a statement. If the Prime Minister has not got the guts of the nerve to do it, at least perhaps I could ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is in charge of the Bill, whether he will make a statement or whether he still intends to drive the Bill through the House without accepting any Amendments moved from any part of the Chamber. That would be an additional offence to all the multitudinous offences he has committed against us with the usurpation of time through his guillotine. With the failure of the Government to secure a reasonable majority on a matter of this importance, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman now give us an undertaking that he will treat every future Amendment on its merits and that it is not the Government's intention to try to drive the Bill through without a Report stage?

The Chairman: The Committee will realise that strictly speaking that would be out of order, but under the circumstances I am prepared to allow the right

hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the point.

Mr. Rippon: In view of the timetable to which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has often referred, I suggest that the best thing we can do is to get on with the discussion of Clause 3 and see how we proceed. We received in the last Division the same majority as we had on Second Reading, and in the same circumstances.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. We have seen the Prime Minister slink out behind your Chair, but should there be on the Government Front Bench any right hon. Gentleman who did not fight the last election personally on a pledge that there must be the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the public, at least he might have the guts to give us a justificatiton of the Government's conduct in the face of the last vote.

The Chairman: I find no point of order in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We must proceed.

Mr. William Molloy: We are not certain whether the Prime Minister has resigned or whether he simply ran away when my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) challenged him. Can you help us to understand the position, Sir Robert?

The Chairman: It is not my responsibility, I am glad to say. We must now proceed with our work.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was speaking there was some commotion on the other side of the Chamber caused by hon. Members leaving. You then stood in your place, Sir Robert, and called, "Order". Those Members who were leaving refused to accept your ruling that they should remain in their seats and be in order. Why did you not exercise your authority by compelling them to stay in their seats?

The Chairman: I thought that when I asked hon. Members to leave quietly, they did leave quietly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or quieter, to be more exact. I have no feeling that anyone did anything disrespectful to the Chair, and I


did not feel called upon to take any further action.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I recall that on one occasion when I passed between you in the Chair and the speaker on the Floor you sent me a note asking me not to do it. Why did you not send one to those hon. Members who were leaving?

The Chairman: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman is deliberately trying to pick a quarrel with me. I have no intention of quarrelling with him.

Mr. Loughlin: Answer the point of order.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order. As the Minister responsible for the Bill has not satisfactorily answered the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about the future proceedings on the Bill, following the dramatic drop in the Government's majority, is it not a responsibility of the Leader of the House to give us guidance, so that we can see whether we shall be proceeding on lines satisfactory to the Committee, and so that we can avoid a repetition of the present situation?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is it in order to ask whether, as has been alleged, when the Prime Minister left the Chamber it was because he was funking the issue or whether it was just a display of petulance or the sheer arrogance we have become accustomed to.

The Chairman: That is nothing to do with me. We should proceed with our business. Hon. Members have demonstrated their feelings. They know there is nothing I can do. I am charged by the House and every hon. Member to try to get on with the work of the House.

Mr. Harold Wilson: We understand your position, Sir Robert, and no one is attempting to quarrel with you—I hope the imputation about the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was not seri-

ous on the part of the Chair. The question of the Government's conduct of the Bill has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. We have now reached a situation in which Divisions take place at the usual gagged intervals. It is clear that the proceedings of Parliament are being reduced to a farce because the Government will not accept a single Amendment, even if they get a comma out of place, as they are determined not to have a Report stage, and therefore they will deny Parliament its rights which are normal on any Bill of this kind, but particularly on one which so fundamentally affects the rights of Parliament. In this situation may we hear from the Minister in charge of the Bill, who carries a heavy responsibility, not only on the merits ordemerits of what he has negotiated, but on the very form of the Bill and the treatment of Parliament, that for the rest of the proceedings the Government will debate the issue on its merits and will be prepared to accept Amendments which obviously have a degree of acceptance throughout the House? Or are the Government simply trying to gag us by refusing a Report stage? If that is their attitude, we must give warning that we know what we have to do.

Mr. Rippon: We have debated all the Amendments and dealt with them on their merits. I suggest that we continue to look at Clause 3 and debate the merits of the Amendments to that. So far I have had to advise that the Amendments were either unnecessary or bad.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Robert. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), with your permission, put a question to the Prime Minister, and while he was putting it the right hon. Gentleman treated you and the Committee, with disrespect by walking out. We know that as the guillotine is on no back bencher and no one on the Opposition Front Bench can move to report Progress, because that would go against the guillotine. But I think it would be in order for the Leader of the House, who is present, to beg to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. That would give an opportunity for the Prime Minister and those in charge of the Bill to consider what has just happened and


report to the House after due consideration.

8.0 p.m.

The Cabinet and the Government could not have given due consideration to the points which my right hon. and hon. Friends have raised. The Prime Minister, so filthy and shabby in his behaviour, never even had the decency to stay here and listen. May I ask the Leader of the House through you, Sir Robert, to get up and move that we report Progress and ask leave to sit again? This would give the Government the chance to consider the serious points that have been put by the Opposition Front Bench.

The Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Member wishes to intervene again?
I see that he does not in which case I call Mr. Foot.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. May I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)? I think that he has put up a perfectly valid point, particularly since you had permitted a question to the Government Front Bench and since the Chancellor of the Duchy who is in charge of the Bill will not give us this undertaking.
In view of this, may I ask the Leader of the House to give us an undertaking, first that no decision has been made by the Government or those in charge of the Bill that they will reject all Amendments to avoid a Report stage? Will he undertake that it is still perfectly open to the House to arrange a Report stage if that is found convenient and will he also give us an undertaking that he will ask the Cabinet to reconsider the whole question of the progress of the Bill in the light of the vote tonight and to make a report to the Committee when it next meets?
I would ask the Leader of the House who is in charge of the affairs of the House to answer these questions which have come from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North and which are fully supported by all my hon. Friends.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): Of course I will do my

best to help the House and the Committee. I was under the impression, if I may say so in view of what was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), that no one was addressing a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or to anyone else but was addressing a point of order to you, Sir Robert.
I believe that you had indicated at least once that it was rather doubtful whether it was a point of order. Certainly no one left while a question was being addressed to him.
As to the majority, it is one on which I have known the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends proceed in the past on major matters. For the Leader of the Opposition, who refused to give his party a free vote on the basic issue, to talk about anyone being gagged is, to put it mildly, an offence to the integrity of the rest of the House. In spite of his attempt to gag his own party on that vote, the House gave us a majority of no less than 112 for the policy and terms of the negotiations which this Bill is implementing. I am sure that both in constitutional theory and democratic practice the Government are in order in proceeding with their business as the House has decided.
As to the specific question put to me by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) I say, as my right hon. and learned Friend has already said, that we shall continue to listen to the arguments. If we are convinced that an Amendment does not have to be rejected on the grounds of being unnecessary or bad—I think that those were the words of my right hon. and learned Friend—we will treat it in the normal way. If such Amendments were to be passed there would have to be a Report stage.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the possible reflections which the right hon. Gentleman may have thought fit to cast upon you, Sir Robert, in that he suggested that this was a point of order which was addressed to you and that you were rulingon that matter, may I put another point?
Is it not a fact that it would be quite unprecedented for you or anyone occupying the Chair not to allow facilities for the Government to be asked of their future intentions after a narrow vote on a matter of great importance?
There were only three Ministers who could have responded to the point. One was the Prime Minister who left his sinking ship in the most humiliating circumstances. The second was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who has shown his utter contempt for this Committee, not merely throughout the debate but by the form of Bill he has introduced. Surely we had the right to hope that the Leader of the House, who traditionally represents the interest of the whole House, which he has manifestly failed to do, should make a statement on this matter instead of trying to make party political points? Surely he should have said whether the Government intend to railroad this Bill through? Is it not a fair point, since the right hon. Gentleman referred to the vote on 28th October last, to say that this was an expression of opinion by the House. This is a Bill which is before us.
There were many who voted with the Government on that occasion, even those who might agree with the terms negotiated, who would still feel that the Bill is an outrage against the House, who would feel that even though they supported the terms, this is an outrage against the House, forced through in an unprecedented manner. No constitutional measure of this kind has ever been guillotined before—nothing that takes away the liberties of centuries from this Parliament. In these circumstances, surely we should have had an understanding response from the Leader of the House?

An Hon. Member: From the Prime Minister.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not expect it from the Prime Minister, not this one. [Interruption.] I was prepared to answer questions, when I was Prime Minister, about Government intentions after a narrow vote in the House. He just walked out in a fit of petulance or contempt without precedent in my time in the House. At least we have the right to expect from the Leader of the House some concern for this House in respect of its rights over a Report stage.

Mr. R. Carr: As I believe I said when we were discussing the timetable Motion, part of the principle of parliamentary democracy is that in the end the rights and the will of the majority should also

be considered after having given adequate opportunities for those who take a minority view. That I believe is important.

Mr. Harold Wilson: We want Willy Whitelaw.

Mr. Carr: We have had a six-day debate upon one Clause in the Bill. If this is steam-rollering the Bill through, then it is a strange interpretation of the word "steam-rollering". That charge comes ill from the Leader of the Opposition who denied a free vote to his own Members on the basic issue and who in spite of that was defeated by a majority of 120.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In the light of these answers from the Leader of the House, and since we have had no statement from the Prime Minister, and since the Government will not send for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who at least tried to discharge his duties to the House, we have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he no longer commands the respect of the House as a Leader of the House dedicated to serving the requirements of the House as a whole and not just to forcing through a filthy Bill by rail-roading.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Does the rule about tedious repetition apply to points of order? The right hon. Gentleman has a point of view on this issue, a point of view which is known like my own. If he feels that by attacking personalities in the Government he is enhancing his purpose then I have to say that he is defeating his object. Does the tedious repetition rule apply to points of order?

The Chairman: Perhaps the Committee will do me the honour of listening to me for a few moments. I have listened attentively to what hon. Members have said. I fully appreciate the feelings of hon. Members on my left when an important Division like this is carried by so narrow a majority. Yet they are at heart good House of Commons men, and they know that at some future date they might have a Bill which is anathema to the other side on which a similar majority is obtained, and they would expect to be treated in a reasonable way. Hon. Members have made a considerable


demonstration which will be noted by the Press and by the whole country. Having done that, surely we should proceed to our work and go on with the democratic process of further discussing the Bill.
The system is that even a majority of one is enough to carry the business of the House for the purposes of the Chair and of our unwritten constitution. From my experience of sitting in this Chair for many years I know when the Committee should cease a demonstration. Until now it has made an effective demonstration but, if it goes on, it will be overdone and its effect will be altogether spoiled. I ask hon. Members to accept that from me, from the heart. I do not wish there to be any disgrace to the Committee or any criticism that the Committee is not prepared to abide by its own decisions.
I hope that I shall now be able to call the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to start on Clause 3.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order. Sir Robert, you have said that you recognise the deep-seated and genuine feelings of hon. Members. May I ask the Leader of the House to take note of what has been said and to ask the Prime Minister to come here tomorrow to make a statement on why he walked out in the middle of a point of order that was being addressed to him in the conventional way in which all Governments expect points of order to be addressed on an occasion like this?

Mr. R. Carr: Mr. R. Carr indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: If by nodding his head the Leader of the House is indicating that he does not intend to convey those feelings to the Prime Minister, he, as well as the Prime Minister, must expect a rough ride on this issue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order. You have said, Sir Robert, that the Bill should go forward democratically. Will you explain to the Committee how the democratic process can be carried forward if the Government have made up their mind to accept no Amendments to the Bill?

The Chairman: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question as well as I do. Any Government who get a majority for what they

are doing in the proper way in accordance with the rules of the House are entitled to that majority and to proceed accordingly. I think we should proceed now.

Mr. Michael English: Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has already raised a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: This is a different point of order.

The Chairman: I call Mr. English, who has not previously raised a point of order. Perhaps we can then move on.

Mr. English: On a point of order. I realise, Sir Robert, that you do not wish my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to be too unkind to the Leader of the House, but I am sure you will recollect that the Leader of the House today is perhaps in a slight mood since he lost control of the House last night on his own business.
At the very beginning of these proceedings, did you not make a ruling precluding any Amendment that would destroy the main purpose of the Bill? That being so, are right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench saying that they have not positively decided to refuse every Amendment, or are they saying that they so believe in the perfection of their Bill that not one of the 630 Amendments contains a modification designed better to achieveits purposes? For example, the Liberal Party, which is not renowned for being anti-Marketeer since that party first thought of going into Europe, put down an Amendment which also was refused by the Government.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me. I should be glad if the Committee would leave the position there and let us get on.

Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order. Before any Amendment was put down to either the Housing (Finance) Bill or the Local Government Bill, the Government agreed through the usual channels that there would be in one case a six-day Report stage and in the other case a four-day


Report stage. At that time the Government did not know the nature of any Amendment that would be tabled. Will the Leader of the House tell us, through you, Sir, why a precedent created only six weeks ago on those Bills should be completely disregarded?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must realise that that is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and others accused the Prime Minister of discourtesy. Hon. Members know perfectly well where I stand on the Bill and on the last vote. I was sitting here, just as they were. I heard the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) raise a point of order with you, Sir Robert. The point of order was turned down. The hon. Gentleman again raised a point of order. The Prime Minister sat through all that, and it was not until Sir Robert said that the second point of order was not a point of order that the Prime Minister went out, no doubt to an appointment.

The Chairman: These comments are interesting but not, strictly speaking, concerned with our business.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has something special and brand new that he wishes to tell us. I shall be pleased to hear it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Sir Robert, I resent the tone that you use. I originally raised a legitimate point of order, and I resent the tone of your voice when you have not heard my next point of order. My first point of order was to ask whether the Leader of the House would move to report Progress. My next point of order is meant to be helpful.
The occupant of the Chair on these occasions has a difficult task. Points of order can cause hard feelings. From my proud 28 years' membership of the House of Commons I know that it is sometimes the practice of the Leader of the House to move to report Progress to enable the Chair to be relieved from the difficulty of deciding whether points of order are

legitimate. I ask the Leader of the House to move to report Progress to discuss a matter which is even more serious than the Bill, the challenge by the Leader of the Opposition that the Leader of the House is not doing his duty to the House. We cannot argue and debate these matters on points of order, but if the Leader of the House were to move to report Progress we could have an hour's debate to see whether he is doing his duty to the House.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is under a slight misapprehension. There would be no debate. It is expressly laid down in the Motion that if those in charge of the Bill seek to move to report Progress, the Question must be put forthwith from the Chair without debate. Therefore, it would not help the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to be able to give him some satisfaction.

Mr. Michael Foot: Whatever our disputes with the Government, Sir Robert, we think that you have done your best to assist the Committee in this situation. Although I understand the legitimate point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, both on the first occasion and a moment ago, I should point out that if we were to argue the matter in terms of the tone of voice used, we would be raising matters of some difficulty.
What we are saying contains no resentment towards you, Sir Robert. Indeed, the situation is the very opposite. What we resent is the Government's conduct and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House made no effort to assist the Committee. We reiterate that we were seeking to raise matters in the normal way when an incident such as this occurs. Many of us think that the incident occurred in view of the nature of this Bill, which is a Bill of momentous importance.
I hope that we may now respond to your appeal, Sir Robert, and proceed. But we shall certainly seek to return to the matter and to deal with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. However, I do not believe we shall get any satisfaction from the Minister in charge of the Bill; we have had enough experience of him already. I do not complain about the Prime Minister all that much. I thought his behaviour was


perfectly ordinary: he behaved with his usual boorishness.

The Chairman: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I was, if course, referring to what he said about me. It would be quite improper for me to give any indicatiton of a view about what he said about anybody else, and I would not do so. I am obliged to him for the way in which he has spoken, and I am glad that he has shown a desire to proceed with the business.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Clause 3

DECISIONS ON, AND PROOF OF, TREATIES AND COMMUNITY INSTRUMENTS ETC.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 445, in page 4, line 26, leave out subsection (1).

The Temporary Chairman: I understand that it will be convenient with this Amendment to take Amendment No. 347, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'law' to end of line 32.

Mr. Murray: The Committee will appreciate that we are now turning to the third chapter of Part I of the Bill. I should like to present two arguments in seeking to exclude subsection (1) from Clause 3. The first argument is a general one which is concerned with the subsection and with the structure of Part I; I shall raise yet again, as I must, the question of sovereignty in its legal aspect. The second argument I wish to present is a more detailed legal argument in which I shall hope to satisfy the Committee that, if there is a legitimate purpose in subsection (1), this way of dealing with it is hopelessly bad and will not suffice.
I come to my first argument. It has been said that the Bill does not honestly and openly fulfil the objectives which the Government have set themselves. It was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that in page 3, lines 5 to 10, one had a Louis XIV provision. It is fair to say that in Part I of the Bill what is out-

standing is the draconian nature of the provisions that are sought to be enacted. No less a word than "draconian" will do for this situation. The defence propounded by the Government to this type of criticism has been to say, in effect, that the Labour Opposition when they were the Government knew that draconian measures were needed. That is no argument at all. The Government have to justify these draconian measures, and I am sure that this point of criticism has a considerable degree of force.
We are struck by the Bill's failure to fulfil the elementary rule that justice should not only be done, but manifestly should be seen to be done. It is one thing to introduce draconian measures but it is another thing to introduce them by way of a Chinese puzzle in which one cannot even see the dragon's shape. Sometimes I think the Bill is a Chinese puzzle; at other times I see it as something in the nature of a jigsaw puzzle, in which once the pieces are put together the dragon will appear. If it is a jigsaw puzzle, it would appear to have four corner pieces: Clause 1(3), Clause 2(1), Clause 2(4) and Clause 3(1).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was interested in my hon. and learned Friend's remark that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. He will know that I have 25 Motions on the Order Paper which draw attention to cases in British law, and under British rules and procedure, in which justice does not appear to have been done. Is he saying that if we go into the Common Market I shall not be able to table Motions condemning irregularities and lack of justice in the Common Market courts—and indeed, will not be able to table Motions which seek to bring about a change in the Common Market courts?

Mr. Murray: I am afraid my hon. Friend will find his style considerably cramped. I, like many other Committee Members, have greatly admired his manifest sense of legality.
8.30 p.m.
I was dealing with the Bill as a puzzle and I suggested that it perhaps was a jigsaw puzzle. Again, perhaps it is an anagram. Perhaps it is an anagram of the word "automaticity". Whatever the puzzle, it is quite clear that we have to


find clues to crack the code. The Bill is in code and one has to find clues. One of the clues—not the most important but one of them—is contained in Clause 3(1).
To discover what Clause 3 is intended to do, one can do no better than to turn to the Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. This appears on page ii of the Explanatory Memorandum where it says this about it:
Clause 3 deals with the treatment and proof of the Treaties and Community instruments in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and makes it clear that questions of their validity, meaning and effect are to be determined in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court.
It is quite clear, therefore, when we turn to page 4 of the Bill proper and apply our minds to Clause 1(3), that we are here dealing with that, nothing less and nothing more—the application of the jurisprudence of the European Court to this country, the introduction of the full panoply and majesty of European justice. It is that and no more, emphatically no less.
It is in that light that I want to go over the debates we have had on earlier subsections. These are fresh in our minds, so fresh indeed that it will come as no surprise to the Committee if I stress that it is in this subsection that the wig is set upon the judge who is chairing the European Court. There is the complete panoply. The scene is set.
Now we have the situation where the fears and anxieties, which have in no way been requited by the Government's replies, find their force. Our fear, and certainly the fear on the Government side of the Committee, is that once these enactments have been made the House of Commons will find itself bound by these draconian measures and robbed of its essential sovereignty. There was the example mooted in yesterday's debate, of whether one could legally repeal the Bill. That may be dealt with by the kind of answer that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) has sought to give, or it may be dealt with in more sophisticated ways.
But of course there are minor problems which may pose acute difficulties in the same way. For example, even some change in Clause 2(4) may give rise to

a genuine difficulty. In the end the decision as to whether an attempt to pass an Act of Parliament altering the detailed words or the first four lines of subsection (4) can be done legally by this Parliament will ultimately not be taken by any court in this country and not by the House of Commons. This House will cease to be the High Court of Parliament in that sense because the final decision on the legality of what is done will lie with the European Court in Luxembourg.
I do not express any value of judgment. I am simply stating the bald facts. They cannot be gainsaid. Indeed, the indictment of subterfuge, of lack of honesty and oppenness is proved to the hilt, not on a balance of probability, not merely beyond reasonable doubt, but conclusively by the course of these debates.
So much, therefore, for the first of the general arguments which I seek to present. It may be that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee will wish to raise—and this debate will give them an opportunity as long as they relate it to the jurisdiction of the Court—questions about the meaning and effect of the treaties and how judicial decisions upon these may have an impact upon our native institutions in this country. These are important matters, and I hope that the debate will be a wide-sweeping one and will not be confined to the narrow legalities which might otherwise dominate the forum.
The second argument which I wish to present is, admittedly, a narrower one and perhaps a little legalistic. I do not mean legalistic in the sense that I want to make it so, but perhaps inevitably it will appear so. The intention is good, and I hope I do not stray into legalism too far. It is important that the Committee should apply its mind to the possible deficiencies in this way of enacting what Clause 3(1) possibly legitimately, certainly for those who believe in going into the Community, seeks to do. To this extent, perhaps the temper of the Committee has changed. We have now gone from Clause 2. Clause 1 and Clause 2 are, at this stage at any rate, past praying for. We must at least take them as so far enacted, not completely enacted but so far enacted, and to that extent the room for debate is narrow.
The question therefore concerns the quality of subsection (1) to achieve the purpose for which it was designed. When it is examined in detail, the Committee will find it seriously wanting. To begin with, if one reads the passage in the Explanatory Memorandum to which I have referred and compares it with the wording of Clause 3(1), one is overcome by a sense of surprise. The central idea in the Explanatory Memorandum is that of European jurisprudence. But that is a mere parenthesis when one considers the wording of the subsection. Why is it done like this? Why this sleight of hand? Why is it not in the forefront?
Then, when one applies one's mind to the first four words of the subsection, one becomes aware that they are not crystal clear. They will not be clear to a layman, and I do not think that they will be transparently clear to a lawyer. However, it may be that lawyers more learned than I will be able to show that they are clear. But certainly they are not transparent.
The opening words of the subsection are:
For the purpose of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument, shall be treated as a question of law…
Why is that put in?
First, why narrow it to legal proceedings? We have been told—and there seems to be ample reason for this fear and anxiety—that the effect of Clause 1(3) and Clause 2(1) is to impose Community law as superior law upon the law of this country. If that is right, in some respects these words are otiose. If these earlier subsections have imposed directly applicable law on the domestic law of the United Kingdom, manifestly that law will apply for the purposes of legal proceedings. No other consequence can flow.
Is it meant to narrow it down? Is it to be said that we have to apply European jurisprudence in legal proceedings and not elsewhere? Is there a subtle distinction? We do not know. It is a question that I can only throw to right hon. and hon. Member son the Government side hoping for an answer. I may pose a possible answer myself, but it may not be right. There is some doubt about

the reason for using these words at the beginning of the subsection.
It goes on:
…any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties…shall be treated as a question of law..
Manifestly it would be a question of law. The treaties are international law and they are directly applicable in the domestic jurisdiction of the various countries.
Why, then, are those words there? The answer that has come to me is that it is arguable that although questions involving the interpretation of the treaties would be questions of foreign law in this country and accordingly would have to be proved in evidence, if the words were not there Community law might be treated as foreign law and have to be proved as fact. If that is the purpose of subsection (1), Community law is domesticated or naturalised to this country in a way that goes far beyond what we have done to our own domestic jurisdiction. Scottish law is foreign law in England. English law is foreign law in Scotland. We are giving Community law a birth certificate which we have not given to our domestic legal systems.
I have mentioned our domestic legal jurisdictions. I should raise a point relating to the subsection as it contains the first mention of the European Court, a point which has exercised the minds of members of the public and some Members on this side of the Committee. I refer to the question of jurisdiction.
This country, although it is a single State—it is a kingdom or an amalgam of kingdoms with one Monarch—has three legal jurisdictions. They are not jurisdictions which have ever been combined. That is why the law of each is foreign law in the jurisdiction of the others. In that situation one has to pose the question of whether the arrangements for entry which are reflected in the subsection will be adequate for the legal problems which this tripartite jurisdiction will present. It is a serious problem.
Some commentators on the treaties and on the Community have put forward a theory for the number of judges. The figure was seven and it will be increased to 11 in the event of the applicant countries succeeding. One explanation for the number of judges is that at least one


judge must come from the jurisdiction of each of the member States because judicially he will know the law of his jurisdiction. There must be an odd number to ensure that there will be an absolute majority, so that there are no tied votes, which would create the embarrassment of presidential casting votes. That explains the odd number and it explains the minimum number of judges.
If there are 11 judges, on British entry the judge representing the United Kingdom will presumably have to deal with three jursidictions. It poses this question Is the arrangement that led to the decision that there should be six judges in the Community of Six, plus one to make the numbers odd—if that is the decision—satisfactory if we have only one judge to represent three jurisdictions, which are foreign law still to each other? The problem may be answered, but I so far have heard no answer.
The problem does not stop at the level of the European Court because the same problem must run through all the activities of the Community, because the Community will have its being in three separate jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. The three separate jurisdictions will similarly reflect themselves in the operations of the central organs of the Community in Brussels and elsewhere.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I follow the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making. We have solved that problem for this country. The decisions of the House of Lords are binding on all three jurisdictions. That court has to consider these problems in the three jurisdictions and resolve them. As it is the superior court for the three jurisdictions, its decisions have the force of law in all three. The problem is not a new one for us. We have solved it for a long time.

Mr. Murray: I take the point. When the House of Lords sits to hear a Scottish appeal it is a Scottish court. When it sits to hear an English appeal it is an English court. When it sits to hear a Northern Ireland appeal it is an Irish court. There are representatives on the court from each jurisdiction. That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman may find that the argument leads beyond where he would wish to take it.
We must pose the problem of whether the tripartite legal character of the United Kingdom has been adequately dealt with. The Opposition would like an answer to that. I do not press for an answer today. The Opposition would be entitled to say that this is a matter of some anxiety. It is a matter of importance. It may not be a matter of major importance in the sense that the issues of entry, which we are discussing in detail, in this Part of the Bill are of major importance. It has an importance which cannot be gainsaid. At some stage before the Bill is enacted, we must be satisfied of the detailed arrangements made in these regards.
8.45 p.m.
I turn now to other words among the opening words of subsection (1). I took in parentheses, as it were, the words
…any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties…shall be treated as a question of law…".
But we must also apply to the words I left out:
…or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument".
We find words there which appear to sound an echo from Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome, which begins:
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:

(a) the interpretation of this Treaty;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community;
(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide".
These words appear to be echoed at least to some extent in the words of subsection (1) that the court will deal with
the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument".
I pause here to point out that this does not say, "any Community act". The word "instrument" is used. But in Article l17(b) the word is "acts"—
the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community".
Therefore, another question of detail which I throw across to the Government to answer is why the word "instrument" is used in the subsection instead of the word "act". Is it sought to narrow jurisdiction so that there will be no power under the terms of the subsection to scrutinise and examine the validity of an act of a Community organ? This is a


very important matter. If subsection (1) does not extend to acts of the Community, clearly whatever is being done in subsection (1) is being done in a very much narrower way than might appear on the face of it.
I should point out here that in Part II of Schedule 1 "Community instrument" is defined—or at least mentioned—as meaning
…any instrument issued by a Community institution.
That is not a very illuminating definition because it still poses the question of what is an instrument. It is not for me to speculate, but I would have thought that "an instrument" means perhaps a document in writing which has legal effect. If that is what is meant, it would be helpful if the Government were to say so, especially since definition is claimed in the Bill, because Part II of Schedule 1 is headed, "Other Definitions". It would be useful to know what "instrument" is intended to mean. I have put a suggested connotation for it and perhaps it may be confirmed or refuted tonight. These are the matters which are to be treated as questions of law and which are to be domesticated, as I conceive it, rightly or wrongly, in the early wording of subsection (1).
Then we come to the words in brackets in subsection (1)—the parenthetical accuracy of the concealed wedged passage we sought to delete in subsection (4) of Clause 2 yesterday. Perhaps I should pay tribute here to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for Amendment No. 183. I am afraid that he is not in his seat at present and I should have said this while he was here. It did not appeal very strongly to the Opposition, but not because it was a bad means of doing what the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to do.
The Committee will remember that the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to lay down some positive guidelines for judges about what they were supposed to do and how they were intended to operate the Bill when faced with the specific task of trying to do justice to people who appeared before them, and that, after all, is the task of a judge. The Bill gives scant guidelines of any kind to judges. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had

applied his mind to subsection (1), that would have been of assistance to the Committee. He sought to add a new subsection after subsection (4) of Clause 2 to give guidance and the line of thought which he was pursuing could have been useful to the Committee.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I find it as difficult as my hon. and learned Friend does to comprehend the Government's failure to offer guidelines. Consider, for example, the question of precedents. Is it my hon. and learned Friend's view that where there is some difficulty in interpreting Community law the courts of this country should take expert evidence from other member States as to the interpretation which they have applied to the point at issue? Where there is a conflict between those member States, where do we get to?

Mr. Murray: As subsection (1) does not apply to these other jurisdictions, to the law of other foreign States, that possibility arises. One may get a court in this country having the law of a foreign State upon a matter of Community law led before it as a matter of fact.
The effect of the second Amendment, No. 347, which perhaps will be moved in due course, is to delete altogether the passage in brackets. That Amendment might commend itself to the Committee for reasons—

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Member. We are dealing with that Amendment, too.

Mr. Murray: I was aware of that, Mr. Godman Irvine, and I was merely saying that I could not move it now.

The Temporary Chairman: The second Amendment cannot be moved at any point.

Mr. Murray: In that case, I am a wiser if sadder Member of the Committee.
The merit of the Amendment is that it deletes the words in parenthesis. This is perhaps an occasion on which the Government can show their backbone in this matter—if they have one—by accepting the Amendment, or at least undertaking to reconsider the drafting of the subsection, because it surely cannot be satisfactory to have the essential objective of a subsection contained in


parenthesis. That cannot be the right way to introduce European jurisprudence. Is this great edifice to be capped as an afterthought? Is it to be done in the dark, instead of in the daylight? I ask the Government to think again about this. No one in the Committee, and no one outside the House, would criticise the Government for having a Report stage because they found downright bad drafts-manship such as this.
I do not criticise the draftsmen in technical terms. I criticise the political draftsmen who have imposed this condition in this form upon the legal intentions which they have. There can be no answer to that, and even if the Government were to do no more than get rid of the brackets the Committee would have made some progress.
I think I have put the key arguments on the wording of the subsection. I could say more about it but I think that I have raised enough problems about the drafting for the Committee to get its teeth into the problem. If we can have a wide-ranging debate in which the full consequences of the legal capping of the structure of the Community can be explored to its limit, that will be of great help.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), as is his wont in these matters, has given the Committee an interesting and informative insight into the complexities of the subsection. Insofar as I can discern—it is not always easy in the Bill to do so—I do not dissent from the basic, general principle underlying the subsection. That is to say, I do not dissent from the general principle that the interpretation of Community law and matters affected by Community law is the business of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, which in the Bill is given the name of the European Court.
Nor do I dissent from the general proposition that if this country enters the Community our courts must, in the application of Community law, be guided by the Court of Justice of the Community and its decisions. Clearly the Community could not function on any other basis. It could not function on any basis other than that a single Community Court was

the final arbiter and interpreter of matters of Community law. Otherwise, one could not hope for a consistent pattern of law and practice if each national court in the Member States had its own independent jurisdiction in the interpretation of Community law. They need the guidelines of a common Community Court in the interpretation of Community law.
That being so, Clause 3, on which we are now embarked, is in a different category to the two Clauses which have so far occupied us in Committee. The Clause does not deserve the description which I gave a good many months ago to Clause 2, on the Second Reading, as being the heart of the matter. It is an important Clause, but for these reasons it is not the heart of the matter.
The points that I propose to put in the few minutes which I shall detain the Committee are primarily of an interrogatory and qualifying nature. As the Committee sees, subsection (1) refers to two matters; first, the meaning or effect of any of the treaties and, secondly, the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument.
The first question I want to ask is about jurisdiction. The general jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is given in Article 164 of the Treaty of Rome in the short words:
The Court of Justice shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed".
That is an admirable, simple sentiment shortly and concisely expressed. The specific jurisdiction regarding parliamentary rulings is given in Article 177, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred.
We find in Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome a specific jurisdiction
to give preliminary rulings concerning (a) the interpretation of this Treaty".
9.0 p.m.
Article 177(b) is presumably intended to cover the second limb of subsection (1),
the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument". Like the hon. and learned Member for Leith, I noticed this discrepancy of language between subsection (1) and Article 177(b) of the Treaty. The Clause refers to "Community instruments", which have that singularly unhelpful


definition later in the Bill, whereas the Treaty refers to acts of the institutions of the Community. When my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replies to the debate, perhaps he will ascribe some reason for that difference of language. The language of the Treaty existed when the Bill was drafted, but there is this different phraseology. No doubt my hon. and learned Friend will also confirm that the jurisdiction regarding Community instruments is, in his view, covered by Article 177(b) of the Treaty.
Where do we find the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the Communities to give rulings on the accession treaties? I appreciate it is logical that it should have it, but where is that jurisdiction identified? I ask that because the pattern of the Treaty is to give express jurisdiction where jurisdiction is to be conferred, as we have seen from the Articles I have quoted.
Subsection (1) refers to
any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties.
As the Committee has reason to know, after the laborious hours we spent on Clause 1, "any of the Treaties" includes not only those in Schedule 1—the Treaty of Rome, the Euratom Treaty and the Coal and Steel Community Treaty—but the accession treaties by express incorporation in Clause 1(2). In addition, it includes
any other treaty entered into by of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom.
We find that at the end of Clause 1(2).
I repeat: where is the jurisdiction regarding those matters conferred upon the Court of Justice of the Communities—the European Court as it is called in the Bill—in order that it may give preliminary rulings about them? That is the first series of questions I put for clarification of this subsection.
I turn now to my second group of questions. What is the legislative machinery, if any, by which it is proposed to give to the British courts the power and, in some cases, the duty to refer these matters of interpretation to the Court of Justice at Luxembourg?
The Committee will see that two matters are dealt with in this context in Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome. The first of these is contained in the second paragraph and is permissive:
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State"—
such a question of course referring back to these matters of interpretation—
that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon.
That is a power conferred upon the court of the Member State, in this case the British court, to refer a matter to the European Court for a preliminary ruling.
The next paragraph, however, imposes a duty:
where any such duty is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
So in that case it is mandatory. Obviously, both of these provisions must be given effect to in British law for the courts under the second paragraph to exercise their powers. It may be a power coupled with a duty, in the language of the law, but the second one is an express, specific, mandatory duty.
I should like my hon. and learned Friend to tell us what is the machinery to give effect to all this. How will it operate in practice? Is there to be fresh legislation to confer upon the courts the power and to impose upon the courts the duty, to do these things in accordance with Article 177? Or do the Government consider that the provisions of Article 177 are self-enacting under Clause 2(1)? Do they consider that they constitute, in the language of that subsection, with which we have been so familiar over the last few weeks, rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions which are, without further enactment, to be given legal effect in the United Kingdom?
The Committee should know what the position is in regard to those matters—whether they are regarded as being self-enacting and therefore automatically coming into force if and when the Bill reaches the Statute Book, or whether it is proposed to make specific legislative provision in regard to these matters, and if so where and when.
Finally, Article 177 says:
Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law…
I should be grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's understanding of that last phrase:
no judicial remedy under national law".
Is that intended to mean no appeal to a higher court, or has it a meaning more restricted than that? It is difficult to think that it has any other meaning because of the words "court or tribunal". It is difficult to see how there could be no judicial remedy with regard to the decision of a court presided over by a judge unless judicial remedy is being equated with a right of appeal to a superior court.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second possibility unlikely to arise in the light of the evidence we have been given by the Government as to the practical effect of Clause 2(1), namely, that that very important subsection, which we debated at some length, applies only to regulations because under the Treaty of Rome it is only regulations which are self-enacting? Surely the Treaty itself is not a regulation and cannot be self-enacting. Indeed, it is only enacted in English law by virtue of the Treaty of Accession. Therefore, although I am not a legal expert, I should have thought that that was not a possibility. Is not the other possibility, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman may care to turn his attention, that the Government may well want to proceed in this, as in other things, by Order in Council, simply telling our courts what they need to do to comply with Article 177?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Yes. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the Order in Council is a form of subordinate legislation. When I said "legislative machinery", that was a compendious term to cover either a Bill preceding an Act of Parliament or some form of subordinate legislation such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. On his first point, I am not sure that one can dismiss the other possibility quite as quickly as that. It is true that in our consideration of Clause 2(1) we were naturally concerned with the regulations under Article 189,

not because the subsection identifies those regulations, still less confines its operation to them; it was simply that we indentified in the Treaty the regulations which, under the Treaty, must be self-enacting. Therefore, we very properly linked Clause 2(1) to Article 189, but non constat that the language of subsection (1), is restricted to the regulations under Article 189. It covers them and is intended to do so, but it may cover other things as well, and the language of it
rights, powers, liabilities, obligations
might be considered apt, the words "rights" and "powers" to self-enact the power to refer under Article 177, and the word "obligations" to self-enact the duty under the third and last paragraph of Article 177 to refer in certain cases.

The Solicitor-General: If my right hon. and learned Friend has finished answering the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), which was related to my right hon. and learned Friend's penultimate point, may I ask exactly what is the question being put by my right hon. and learned Friend on Article 177? He asks whether the phrase
against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy
in the last paragraph of Article 177 means "in respect of which there is no appeal to a higher court". I think that that was the way in which he put it. I fancy that he put an alternative possible meaning for it. If he did, I did not comprehend what it was, and I should like to be clear about it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I suggested that that might be the interpretation of it because if it was not, I could not see very readily what the interpretation would be. So I put it in a interrogative way. Does "judicial remedy" have to be equated, in effect, with the right of appeal to a superior court? I hope we can be enlightened about that.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My right hon. and learned Friend has opened up before the Committee a very alarming dilemma, namely that the power, and in some cases the duty, of a court to refer cases outside the realm might either be self-enacting under Clause 2(1) or might be provided


for by regulation under Clause 2(2). Does he consider that either of these methods would be a satisfactory way of authorising such a fundamental change in the law and, in the absence of appropriate provision, would he consider whether the penalties of praemunire, so far as they still exist, might be involved.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The penalties of praemunire might be involved, I suppose, if national jurisdiction was transferred to a foreign court. I have not had many cases of praemunire in the course of my professional forensic experience and I do not suppose I am alone in that. I will leave my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, with all the expert assistance he has, to enlighten the Committee on the penalties of praemunire to which so courageously he may be exposing himself.
I do not think it is a very happy situation for these sorts of provisions to be self-enacting, because as I made clear in our debates on Clause 2(1) I do not favour the self-enacting mechanism. It is not in accordance with our constitutional practices and it is only seen to be permissible, in so far as it is permissible at all in the Bill, if Article 189 expressly requires it.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

I apologise for detaining the Committee, but owing to these helpful interventions I have taken longer than I intended. Is any guidance to be given to our courts as to the permissive powers to refer which are contained in Article 177(2)? How are the courts to be guided round the pitfalls of Community law and how are they to know in every case whether there is an impact of Community law and, if so, what it is? On whom is the burden of exposition and explanation to be cast?

No one has a greater respect for Her Majesty's judges than I, but it would be asking too much to ask them to assume overnight that they will become immediately familiar with the whole conspectus of Community law. Equally, I have great admiration for members of the Bar, but are they to be under a duty to guide the court in each case on the implications of Community law? Are

they to be at hazard for an action of professional negligence if they fail to do so? I can see the premiums increasing quite a bit in the Temple and in Lincolns Inn if this is to be so.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would the right hon. and learned Member bear in mind—happily he is no longer in danger of having to face these problems, having left the Bar—that the Bar will have to be familiar with mere expressions of opinion by the European Court on any question according to the next subsection?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That had not escaped me. It is not only judgments, as it would be in this country, but expressions of opinion. I suppose that the nearest we would get to that would be an advisory judgment or opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is but rarely indulged in. The opinions of the Community Court will presumably be much more frequent.
Or is counsel's burden to be lightened in these matters and the judiciary to be assisted by the admissibility of expert evidence on Community law? That is a possibility. Expert evidence in this as in other contexts is an expensive matter. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will say something about costs. Who is to bear the costs of the ventilation and adumbration of the Community law aspects in our cases? The Community law will bring a substantial new element into a wide range of cases of a contract and commercial character. It will make them last longer and cost more. We should know what consideration has been given to that aspect and what will be the arrangements for the costs incurred in references to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg for its preliminary rulings, some of which are permissive in the courts here but some of which are mandatory. For example, will there be a special system of legal aid, perhaps irrespective of the ordinary income limits, to cover the taking of cases to the Community Court for preliminary rulings over and above the ordinary costs of litigation?

Mr. Clinton Davis: May I, as a humble solicitor, seek the guidance of the right


hon. and learned Gentleman, as a leading counsel, on what is to happen to the time-honoured maxim in English law that ignorance of the law should be no excuse, taking into account the enormous body of new law that is to be imposed? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has painted a horrifying picture for the lawyers, but is not the position infinitely more horrifying for the ordinary British subject?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must admit that the maxim, "Ignorance of the law excuses no man", is already a little threadbare, with the complexity of modern Statute law, but the impact of Community law aggravates the position. If I was looking at the matter mainly from the point of view of lawyers, it was because I could apprehend great difficulty for them, and a fortiori for those who are not qualified in the law.
Those are the groups of questions I wanted to put. I put them in an interrogative way, mildly critical perhaps, but certainly not a hostile way. I am in no way hostile to the Court of Justice of the Community. Of course not.
On the contrary it would be, I hope, one of the bright spots if we had to enter the Community. We might find that we needed the Court of Justice in several contexts. We might find that we needed it as a nation under Article 170 for example which says:
Any Member State which considers that another Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
We may very well find that we need to invoke its jurisdiction under that Article or perhaps more important under Article 173 the second sentence of the first paragraph of which says:
It"—
that is the Court of Justice
shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.
There we get the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on what in this country we call vires and on the Continent is called de'tournement de pouvoir. That may be an important help from this country's

point of view and very useful to help keep the bureaucratic activities of the Community and the encroachments of the Executive in check. It may well be a welcome and powerful supplement to the efforts this country would have to make, as I said yesterday, as a member State, if we become a member State, to strengthen the democratic content of decision-making. In that spirit of goodwill but with some doubts about the content, purport and consequences of this Clause I put forward these remarks and would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend could, when he comes to reply tonight or on Tuesday address himself to these questions.

Mr. Deakins: I wish to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in my remarks. Unlike him I am not a lawyer but I hope that I can read a Bill, if not as well as he can, at least well enough for the purposes of the Amendment. I must admit that the more I read subsection (1) of Clause 3 the more I realise that it contains the seeds of some future conflicts between the courts of this country and perhaps the Court of Justice and, even more important, between the courts of this country and individual citizens and even the Government of this country, because of the way in which the Government have approached the whole task of getting us into the Common Market.
I want to address my remarks first to the wording of the Clause where it speaks of the
meaning or effect of the Treaties".
The assumption in the use of the word "treaties" is that it is well known what the treaties are. I do not want to weary the Committee but it is a fact that one of the things we have elucidated in our discussion of Clause 1 is that this Committee, the House and the country do not know what are the Community treaties. We know what most of them are, we probably know what 99 per cent, of them are, but we do not know what all of them are.
I submit—not being a lawyer perhaps I should not submit, but rather suggest or assert—that we need to know, our courts need to know, whether in each case a treaty is a Community treaty because it has a bearing on whether the Clause


applies to a foreign instrument which claims to be a Community treaty. The reason for my disquiet is that the Government have told us by no less a person that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that they cannot spell out, in place of paragraph 7 in Schedule 1, all the Community treaties because they are not absolutely certain that they know what all of them are. Therefore, if they were to set them out there would be a danger of omitting one. That is an admission in itself.
The Government go further and say that there is also a danger that by spelling out the treaties in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 they might include one that was not a Community treaty. I am virtually quoting verbatim the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in our earlier discussion in Committee. If the Government do not yet know precisely what are the treaties, it is a poor lookout for the courts when they have to work under Clause 3.

9.30 p.m.

The Government may claim that there will be no difficulty for the courts because, under Clause 1(3), an Order in Council will be issued to explain to the courts and other persons and institutions who need to know saying that such-and-such treaty is a Community treaty. But that does not relieve us of the problem. If the Government cannot say what is a Community treaty, how can they issue an Order in Council explaining what are Community treaties? Most of them are well-known and listed in the first six paragraphs of Schedule 1, but the Government will not be able to give that guidance to the courts until they have made up their mind on the full list of Community treaties.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Would it not in litigation be arguable by one of the parties that even if the Government had failed to introduce the Order in Council under Clause 1(3), a Community treaty alleged to be in being affected that litigation? One would therefore have to got expert evidence which would add to the cost of litigation and we should get into the horrendous position described by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East.

Mr. Deakins: If my hon. Friend will wait a few moments, I shall be coming

to the point of when the courts will be getting to know not only what are the treaties but what are the Community instruments. The precise timing is important from the point of view of costs of litigation and of the rules of natural justice which apply in our courts.
The treaties themselves—particularly the Treaty of Rome—use language of a vagueness which is virtually unknown in English legislation. Sometimes the language is inconsistent. To quote one example, Article 137 of the Treaty of Rome refers to representatives in the European Assembly whereas Article 138 refers to them as delegates. I am sure the distinction between the two is well-known to the Committee, but I am worried that the distinction between "representative" and "delegate" is not known to the judicial authorities on the Continent. This vague, contradictory and inconsistent language may well pose problems for our courts.
I turn now to the effect of the treaties. Reference has been made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East to the validity and interpretation of Community instruments under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome. That is to be a matter for the Court of Justice. I pose the question whether it would be within the competence and powers of the courts of this country to rule that a particular Community instrument could be adjudged to be ultra vires. From a reading of Article 177 is would appear that they could not so rule. That would deprive the courts of this country of power which they retain at present to protect the subject against the unauthorised exercise of power which was given legitimately in the first place.
Again, on the question of interpretation by the courts in terms of the effect of treaties we have the problem involving the question whether regulations can be made independently by the Commission or whether Commission regulations have to be made on the basis of previous and prior regulations which originated in the Council of Ministers.
The Treaty of Rome is extremely vague on this point. Nothing said by either the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Solicitor-General has done anything to clear up the confusion which lies in the wording and nature of the Treaty of Rome. Yet if our courts


are to seek to operate under the terms of the Treaty of Rome and the instruments and regulations which stem from it, they may be in some difficulty because of this vagueness of language.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East quoted extensively from Article 177 and said that this could mean some delay while references were made to the European Court in deciding whether a Community regulation or instrument had a bearing on a case and, if so, whether it was valid and what its interpretation would be.
Apart from questions of delay and slowing up the legal procedure in this country—which in many cases is slow enough already—there is a basic principle which our courts will have to accept, a principle which so far they have not accepted. This relates to the fact that the Treaty of Rome is regarded in the Treaty of Rome as a sacred text. The only organisation which is allowed to pronounce on its interpretation is the European Court of Justice. According to the Treaty of Rome, no other national court can pronounce on the interpretation of that treaty. That is very different from the present position in the courts of this country in respect of Acts of Parliament.
It is now open to a court of first instance to interpret an Act of Parliament and, if that interpretation is wrong or is held to be wrong, a defendant can appeal to a higher court and ultimately to the House of Lords. Therefore, the case is not necessarily held up because of doubts about the interpretation of the Act of Parliament which is the basis of litigation before the court. However, in any case affecting the Treaty of Rome or Community instruments it will not be open to any court in this country, whether it be a court of first instance or the House of Lords, to attempt its own interpretation. The matter will have to be suspended until the European Court has made a decision on it. That is a new departure in the legal practice of this country.
My next point relates to the difficulty that is likely to be faced by courts in respect of Clause 3(1) and is concerned with the regulations—which will flow faster and faster at the rate of 20 or 30 a week, if not more—under Clause 2(1).

These become law automatically and we have already had big debates about the breach in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on the question of the timing of these regulations and their legal effect in this country. Under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome these regulations will have immediate effect in member States. The regulations usually end with a provision stating that the regulations will come into force one, two or three days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. After 1st January, 1973, that journal will be published in English and there is no doubt that from a Community point of view the regulations will become law almost immediately upon publication in the Official Journal. But in some cases we have to issue regulations or Orders in Council in this country because of consequential amendments which will be necessary to existing United Kingdom law—law which in some respects contradicts the new regulations from the Community.
Unless the Government are absolutely spot on here—and I do not think any Government can necessarily be relied upon in this direction—one may well find that a Community regulation has become law a considerable time before there has been an Order in Council promulgated to remove any inconsistencies or contradictions in existing United Kingdom legislation.
I merely pose the problem—and it is a problem, of course, not so much for the House of Commons—of what is to happen in the time gap between a Community regulation of a certain date and an Order in Council under the law of this country removing a contradictory provision of a previous Act of Parliament of a subsequent date. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to settle this for us.
There is also the point that there may be regulations on 1st January, 1973, which have not been translated into English. As at 1st January, 1973, under Clause 2(1) of the Bill they will immediately become part of the law of the country. However, until they are published officially in the Official Journals of the European Communities they will not be known to the people of this country.


I would respectfully suggest that that position is intolerable not only for the courts but for our people, the businessmen and others who will have to abide by the rules of the Community. It is quite contrary to the rules of natural justice that a person can be affected by an instrument, whether it be a Community instrument or a Statutory Instrument here, which has not been published at the date on which it comes into effect.
My next point is to come back to the wording of Clause 3(1) and to point out that the meaning and effect of the treaties and Community instruments have a bearing on the interpretation of Clause 2(2) in which Ministers may have regard to the "objects" of the Communities. The word "objects" is singularly semi-literate, since what the Government mean are the things the Community is aiming at, which are objectives and not objects. Leaving aside the question of who is responsible for this piece of semi-literate draftsmanship, the other fact of which account must be taken is that the Treaty of Rome nowhere mentions the word "objects". That may well pose a difficulty for the Courts of this country in trying to ascertain—when considering a regulation which is the subject of a dispute—what are the objects of the Communities. Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome refers to the "task" of the Communities. Article 3 refers to the "purposes". Articles 4 and 5 refer to "tasks" in the plural, and Article 5 also adds confusion to confusion by referring to "objectives". This is very loose phraseology. I have already referred to this. It poses, and is likely increasingly to pose, problems to those, particularly the courts, who will have to interpret the legislation coming from the Communities.
I do not want to bore the Committee by referring to the contradictory nature of some of the objectives of the European Communities—for example, the objective of having an accelerated raising of the standard of living combined with an objective of having an increase in stability. One cannot have an accelerated raising of the standard of living unless one is in a dynamic, rapidly evolving and changing society—and that, of course, is the reverse of stability.
9.45 p.m.
My next point on Clause 3(1) is that we are told in the subsection that there are to be different standards of interpretation for our courts depending on whether a Statutory Instrument or a legal instrument before them which is the subject of a dispute is a Community instrument. As I understand it, for any Community instrument the interpretation is to be that put upon it by the European Court of Justice; in other words, the interpretation standards of European jurisprudence.
However, for domestic legislation, even for our secondary legislation which purports to put into effect Community legislation such as directives or decisions of the Communities, the courts are to use not the European method of interpretation but the traditional United Kingdom method. There again, there is the danger of conflict and certainly of difficulty for our courts in trying to reconcile two different and perhaps inconsistent systems of interpretation.
That brings me to my major points. Our courts will be placed in increasing difficulty. In my view they will face the possibility of a serious constitutional conflict by virtue of the Government's constantly reiterated claim that this country has a right of veto where important national interests are at stake.
The Treaty of Rome is exceptional. It is for ever. It follows that Article 148 dealing with majority voting in the Council of Ministers is also for ever. Both Article 148 and the Treaty of Rome, as from 1st January of next year under the Treaty of Accession, will become part of our law as well as the law of the Community. Clause 3(1) deals with matters of law. Therefore our courts must have regard to the whole of the Treaty of Rome.
The Government say that the practice of the Communities is different where there is a clash of important national interests. Where one country is the odd man out—in the past it has been France and it might be Britain in the future—the practice of the Communities is to agree to disagree. That is set out clearly in paragraphs 30 and 70 of the White Paper on entry, Command 4715.
The status of the Luxembourg disagreement, which is the sole foundation for the Government's claim that there


is a right of veto, is an important question for our courts, in addition to being a very important question eventually for the European Court of Justice. It has not yet had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. It will be interesting to hear its views when eventually it is forced to pronounce on the validity of that agreement to disagree, in contrast with the clear and unambiguous wording of Article 148 of the Treaty of Rome.
We know that the Luxembourg disagreement is not a treaty. The Government have solidly resisted Amendments designed to write it into our law. It is not a treaty under Clause 1(4) and, therefore, it could not possibly be enforceable in our courts. I wonder how our courts will interpret an agreement to disagree which is not a treaty under Clause 3(1). Will they take note of the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 24th May, 1971, about his talks with President Pompidou?
On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
We agreed…that the processes of harmonisation should not override essential national interests. We were in agreement…that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake."—[Official Report, 24th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 32.]
The courts of this country will not take note of that statement, no matter how eminent the gentleman who made it. They can only take note of what is the law. The law is contained in Article 148 of the Treaty of Rome.
There are a number of dangers here. The first is the general danger, which has already been alluded to, that any future Government of this country would not necessarily be bound by the agreement between Messrs. Heath and Pompidou reported in the House of Commons on 24th May, 1971. This means a very big increase of power to the Executive which has so far not been alluded to in our debates in deciding on any particular occasion whether to use the veto or in deciding—in exchange for perhaps some other major concession by our partners in the Community—to abandon the veto safeguard altogether for the future.
That is evidently to be a matter for the Executive in future but not a matter

for our people, for Parliament or for the courts.
Second, there could be a major constitutional conflict over the use of the veto involving dragging the courts of this country into the mire. I pose this problem. What will be the position if the Council of Ministers could not take a decision because on country—it does not matter which one—decided to exercise its so-called power of veto? Another member State could, under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, appeal to the Euroean Court on the ground that the Council of Ministers was not acting in accordance with he Treaty of Rome. The European Court undoubtedly would have to interpret the treaty. It could not possibly interpret bilateral agreements which are not part of the treaty. Therefore, there is a serious possibility in future that the European Court of Justice could overrule the veto.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that there is a flaw in his argument, in that the problem to which he has referred would not exist unless a decision had been made? If a decision cannot be made because of the existene of the veto, and the veto has been used, there is no question of that non-decision ever being subject to control by a court.

Mr. Deakins: I defer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. English: I am puzzled by the previous intervention. The European Court can deal with actions that are based on the inaction of a Community body. I fail to understand the relevance of the previous intervention. If a decision is not reached, that may be something the European Court can deal with at the behest of some persons.

Mr. Deakins: However the issue might arise—I pose one hypothetical illustration of a number of possibilities—our courts would have to accept the ruling of the European Court of Justice under subsection 3(1). Therefore our courts would be required to enforce that law in this country.
If it was a case of our Government exercising the right of veto, they are surely sowing the seeds of a potentially serious constitutional conflict between the courts of this country—acting on behalf of


the European Court of Justice, in asserting the supremacy of the Treaty of Rome—and the Government of this country claiming that it had a right of national veto.
My third point on the danger of the Luxembourg Agreement is that the United Kingdom, for the first time that I can ever recall—I have some knowledge of the treaties this country has signed over the course of centuries—has signed a major international treaty intending to break a major provision within that treaty even before its signature.
If there were ever any legal dispute the courts of this country must seek to give effect to the whole treaty and not merely to part of it. Basically, under Clause 3(1) the effect and meaning of the treaties is to be a matter of law, not a matter of practice. That is the drafting of the subsection. Therefore, the fact that our alleged right of national veto is not in legal form, a failure for which the Government are responsible, means that we have no long-term safeguard of our national interest, particularly—and I am sure that this will happen inevitably in the next few years—when the European Court of Justice decides that there is no national right of veto whatever.
I suspect that the Government may be resisting writing the veto into legal form not only to avoid a Report stage for the Bill but basically because the very existence of a legal veto would give back to Parliament some of the powers taken from it and give it that little extra power in fighting what is likely to be an increasing and surreptitious move towards federalism and federal institutions. Indeed, not only is Parliament being castrated by Clauses 1 and 2 but even the courts are having their wings clipped—if I may mix my metaphors—under Clause 3.
My final point concerns the danger for the future in Clause 3, which of course arises out of Clause 1(3) and Clause 2(1), (3) and (4). The danger in the first three Clauses, particularly in Clause 3, is not in what we know about the European Communities and the implications of membership at the present stage, but the much more serious danger that we do not know the implications for the future and, in particular, future developments

towards federalism. The Government have resisted all Amendments and all attempts in the first two Clauses to ensure that, if they or a future Government should decide to move towards federalism by some enormous leap forward by virtue of another international treaty, there can be adequate opportunity not only for Parliament to consider, debate, and amend it but, indeed, for Parliament to send the Government packing, because unfortunately there is no such power left to Parliament under Clauses 1 and 2 and we cannot now rely on the courts to safeguard us from such a move.
If the Government have determined, as I suspect they have, although they will not admit it, to accept federalism as an objective as part of the opportunities of going into Europe and gaining alleged economic advantages, the wording of subsections (1) and (4) of Clause 2 and subsection (1) of Clause 3 will allow them to proceed step by step towards federalism and federal measures which might come out of the Comunities without recourse at all to Parliament. Here lies the biggest danger of all in what is proposed in both this subsection and the preceding provisions to which it is linked.
For example, an agreement on the second and third stages of a monetary union would involve, among many other things which would not be dear to the hearts of most hon. Members, whatever their views on membership of the Community, co-ordination and agreement on budgetary policy, indirect taxation and, indeed, ultimately of both corporate and individual direct taxation. If that is not draining the lifeblood of the House of Commons and the people, I do not know what is. But that is the sort of step which could be carried into effect under the provisions of the Bill as they exist without the Government being under any legal or constitutional obligation to come back to us and submit a new Bill for our consideration.
All these things and measures will be able to be set out without the House and the country having a full opportunity of debating them at length, amending them or rejecting them in whole or in part. What we have passed in the Bill allows us to proceed stealthily step by step towards federalism. What we must hope to do by the remaining Clauses and by


the Amendment in particular is to ensure that there are some safeguards against such an eventuality.
It is clear that even without any new international treaties we shall see more and more federal implications in the subordinate legislation coming from the European Communities. We see some already, and some of us have pointed out the dangers but these have been pooh-poohed by those who say that there is no loss of national sovereignty. What we want to ensure is that any move towards federalism is taken in the light of day and is not taken without full public debate and discussion. I have no doubt what the public verdict would be on any such step.
The Government are claiming that federalism is a long way off, but what they are really hoping for is gradually to get us into a federal Europe without any adequate parliamentary—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jopling.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Deakins: I conclude by saying that if the Government hope to impose federalism on this country by stealth, step by step, without full and adequate parliamentary and popular consideration, they will not get away with it. Neither this Parliament, nor the Labour Party, nor, in the last resort, the British people will allow such a thing.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall not detain the Committee long because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I should like to address only two questions to the Solicitor-General and I shall not go into a more general dissertation on the effect of subsection (1). The subsection tends to complete the equation. In Clause 2 we discussed the powers of the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and we are now capping it all by discussing the third element in this unholy trinity, the Court itself. Those are the three parts of the Common Market, and the Clause must follow from what has gone before.
We all appreciate that if we pass subsection (1) we shall establish for this country for the first time what I call a constitutional court. Clauses 1 and 2 establish a written constitution, and Clause 3 puts on top of that constitution the necessary constitutional court which I believe—I do not think this can be denied—will be superior to the House of Commons, certainly in those areas covered by the new written constitution.
I have no great hostility towards a written constitution. I do not share the views of some or agree with the nonsensical things that have been said about a written constitution. My only objection to this written constitution is that the British people cannot change it. In most countries where there is a written constitution it can be changed by the representatives of the people.
I shall not detain the Committee with general remarks of that kind. I shall merely address to the Solicitor-General two questions, one of which was brought to my mind by some remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who dwelt upon the word "Treaties" in Clause 1(3). The word is "Treaties", not "Community Treaties".
When we were discussing Clause 1 and, indeed, Clause 2, we pointed out the distinction between a Community treaty and a treaty. In other words, any treaty entered into by the Government after 22nd January,1972, does not become a Community treaty without an

Order in Council. Until that Order in Council is issued or before it can be issued there has to be an affirmative Resolution on this issue. When we were discussing Clause 1, that was put forward as a safeguard by the Solicitor-General. He said that in future any treaties entered into by the United Kingdom relating to the European Common Market will need to be affirmed or approved by the House of Commons by means of affirmative Resolution. They will then become Community treaties and the legal consequences follow.
I pointed out earlier that Clause 2(1), and the point is the same on Clause 3(1), refers only to "Treaties". So we could have the situation that the United Kingdom signs a treaty entered into after 22nd January, 1972, the Government do not bring in an Order in Council making it a Community treaty and yet, as I read it, under Clause 3(1) that will be a treaty which has the force of law because any questions arising under it can be determined as a question of law by the courts of this country and ultimately by the European Court of Justice or the European constitutional court, if one likes to call it that.
First, why did not the draftsman refer to "Community Treaty"? Why has he referred to the larger term "Treaty"? Does this mean that the Government will be absolved in future from going through the necessary procedure, which we thought they would have to follow, of getting an Order in Council to designate a treaty as a Community treaty to set the legal consequences in train?

The Solicitor-General: I refer the hon. Member to page 1, line 15 of the Bill. The two phrases "the Treaties" or "the Community Treaties" are alternative

Mr. Davies: The Solicitor-General says that they are alternative, but there is nothing that indicates to me that they are alternative. It is not said that they are alternative. A treaty is generally a treaty. It then becomes a Community treaty if there is an Order in Council.

The Solicitor-General: Will the hon. Member be kind enough to look at page 1, line 15? "The Treaties" in question, or "the Community Treaties", means that the whole of that which we debated


for so many days follows, and the term "the Treaties" as it appears in Clause 3(1) has the same meaning as it would have if it were "Community Treaties".

Mr. Davies: I am glad that the Solicitor-General has reassured us that this safeguard applies and that no treaty entered into by this country within Clause 1(3) will have any legal effect until and unless there is an Order in Council and an affirmative Resolution. That is an important assurance.
The rules of statutory interpretation of the European Court may well be different from ours. Those arguing cases before the Court may well seek to rely on what is said in these debates to advance their arguments.
The second question I wish to put relates to yesterday's debate on subsection (4) of Clause 2. I shall not go over the same ground, but to some extent the two subsections overlap. Clause (3)(1) says that matters must be decided in accordance with the principles laid down in any relevant decision of the European Court. The word "principle" is important, but it is possible to look at the case law of the Community to see what some of the principles up to now have been.
The most important sphere which we debated yesterday concerned the principle relating to a clash between the law of a nation State or a municipal law, on the one hand, and a Community law on the other. There is little doubt that the principle of the European Court, established by its case law, is summed up clearly in the Italian ENEL case which has been mentioned previously. I should like to quote briefly from part of the judgment to illustrate the principle on which the court operates in a case of conflict between national and Community law. The quotation is contained in an article in the Modern Law Review of September, 1971.
The Court said:
no provisions of municipal law, of whatever nature they may be, may prevail over Community law…lest it be deprived of its character as Community law and its very legal foundation be endangered. The validity of a Community act or its application in a member State remains, therefore, unimpaired, even if it is charged that the basic rights…or the national constitution were violated.

The point is clearly made that this is the principle, which I am sure is accepted, on which these matters are decided. The principle derived from the case law of the European Court is that Community law takes precedence over national law.
In the light of that principle I wonder whether the Solicitor-General will again explain the point raised yesterday and some remarks which he made in the debate which appear in the Official Report of 13th June at column 1320. The Committee will recall that we were discussing the effect of a future Statute which might seek not necessarily to repeal the whole Bill but in some way to limit, say, the effect of the words in Clause 2(4) of the Bill.
The Solicitor-General said:
Is there any room for future legislation of this Parliament expressly to exclude or override Community obligations? Several hon. Members have touched upon that. Most people have agreed that a subsequent United Kingdom Statute—even if not designed to pull us out of the Communities—which began with the phrase 'notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 2 and Clause X of the European Communities Bill, black shall be white' "—
that was the kind of future Statute the hon. and learned Gentleman was postulating, a Statute which sought to limit the European Communities Bill but not necessarily to repeal it in its entirety—
would mean that the courts of this country would give effect to that limited proposition, certainly as the matter now stands".—[Official Report, 13th June, 1972; Vol. 838. c. 1320.]
The important words are that
the courts of this country would give effect to that limited proposition"—
that is, would give effect to the later Act—
certainly as the matter now stands".
On the face of it, that passage is in complete defiance of and contrary to the quotation which I made from the Italian case enunciating the principle that Community law shall indeed be superior to national law.
So I have to look at the Solicitor-General's remarks again. Looking at them more closely—being an excellent lawyer, he has hedged his bets—the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the courts of this country would certainly, as the matter now stands, give effect to all this. However, the words become slightly meaningless. It is not the courts of this


country which decide the matter. The matter would not be decided as it now stands, because as it now stands we are not a member of the Community. As it now stands, this whole concept of European jurisprudence has not been inserted into our law.
10.15 p.m.
If the Bill becomes law, given that subsection (1) says that our courts, in all matters involving Community law and interpretation of the treaties, must apply the law in accordance with the principles of the European Court, what will be the position if we get the same kind of statute as the Solicitor General postulated yesterday? If a later Act repeals or holds in abeyance certain parts of this Bill, will it take precedence? In the end the matter has to be decided by the European Court. There is no answer but that that court would ultimately prevail.
Suppose that we tried to repeal all this Bill. It may be argued that, as a matter of law, that too would have to be decided by the European Court, and there is nothing to suggest that it would come down in favour of the later Act.
We have not yet had an answer to this question, which goes to the heart of our sovereignty. We can pass any Statute we like, but the question is whether the European Court, which will be the final arbiter—the highest court in the realm, although outside the realm—will give precedence to any later Act over the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I want first to refer to a verbal matter but not on that account a necessarily unimportant one. It is in this subsection that the expression "European Court" first appears. That term has been chosen for the purposes of our own legislation. It does not occur in the Treaty of Rome and it is not one which we are obliged to adopt. We have adopted it voluntarily and can change it if we think fit.
It is true that this expression is defined in Schedule 1 and it might be that our discussion on that schedule would be the appropriate time to discuss this point. Under the guillotine, however, we shall have at the next allotted day only one and a half hours for consideration of all the substantial matters which will arise on the First Schedule.
At least, I think that that is so, although I noted with some interest the words which fell from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today when, replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), he assured him that there would be "further opportunity" to discuss on Schedule 2 an important matter which had arisen. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not thereby find himself in breach of an assurance; for other very important matters arise on Schedule 2, to which only 3½ hours is allotted under the guillotine. So I put that matter on record, as I think that the assurance which my right hon. and learned Friend gave was important, certainly for the impact on Northern Ireland of this Bill and of what is to be done under it.
That is why I want to refer at this stage to the designation "European Court" and to say that it is a wholly inappropriate choice. It is a deliberate and avoidable misuse of the term "European", as if Europe were coincident with the present or indeed the future Economic Community.
I regard it as offensive that the Bill should deliberately choose to describe the court of justice of the Community as the European Court; and I hope that in this respect, and wherever we have to choose our words carefully, we shall refrain from this abusive—in the grammatical sense—use of the word "Europe". I trust that when we come to the First Schedule there will be time and opportunity for the Government to accept an Amendment in the name of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) which would substitute the term "Community Court", which surely is both more appropriate and more accurate.

Mr. Michael Foot: I do not know whether the Minister responsible would give an immediate reply to that request. It seems a very simple suggestion and it would be very helpful if the Minister would suggest that we should have an immediate answer.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie) indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: If we are to have no response to that suggestion, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to invite my hon. and


learned Friend the Solicitor-General, when he winds up the debate, specially to refer to that Amendment—it is surely in order in connection with this subsection which uses the expression—and to indicate the Government's point of view?

The Lord Advocate: I am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will read with care everything that my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged. In view of what has been said earlier this evening, I would hope it would be the attitude of the Government that if it is the general wish of the House of Commons even on a matter of nomenclature, that "Community Court" should be substituted for "European Court", they would not be prevented from deferring to the wish by any scruples arising from matters of procedure.
I come now to the matter of substance in this subsection. It was partly jocularly, I admit, that in an intervention in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) I referred to the danger of incurring the penalties of praemunire. I noticed some alarm on the Front Bench; but, fortunately for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, the Criminal Law Act, 1967, in Schedule 4 Part I, at last removed from our Statute Book the 16th of Richard II. They have, therefore, escaped from what might otherwise have been the very serious consequences of aiding and abetting the removal out of the realm of causes which would otherwise fall to be adjudicated in the courts of the Crown.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Perhaps I could apologise to my right hon. Friend that the reference to the Schedule of the 1967 did not spring instantaneously to my mind when he made his helpful intervention.

Mr. Powell: That is a very surprising and unusual lapse on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend, but I suppose that it is one for which he may hope to obtain the forgiveness of the Committee.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It is the case, is it it is not, that the writ ne exeat regno

could still have applied to the Minister if he had sought to avoid the consequences of what might otherwise have been a peril?

Mr. Powell: That is an interesting possibility, which perhaps we ought to pursue later.
I was engaged in saying that though the form in which I interposed was half jocular, the matter is very serious indeed, for what this subsection does or confirms is that for the first time for over four centuries there is a question of causes being decided, or decided finally, outside the realm and by a court other than a court of this country. That is one of the central constitutional consequences of what we are doing in this Bill. I added the words "in this Bill" to that sentence very deliberately; for I question whether it is necessarily implicit that this should be so in the acceptance of the Treaty of Accession or in the passage of legislation to give effect to it.
It is remarkable how we have found during this Committee stage that one major debate or series of major debates, when they appear to be terminated, as might have appeared with Clause 2 by the Division at 7.30 p.m., nevertheless are immediately resurrected by the next provision to which the Committee comes.
We meet the same challenge in Clause 3 as we have been meeting in Clauses 1 and 2, namely, that it was not necessary, if it had been desired to avoid it, to bring about by this Bill the consequence that in form as well as in substance the ultimate jurisdiction in a whole series, and a growing series, of cases affecting individuals, companies and other persons in this country will be decided outside the realm and otherwise than by the courts of this country, and the jurisprudence of the Community will be formally superimposed upon our courts.
I rest this proposition upon the fact that Clause 3(1) hangs together with Clause 2(1). If instead of Clause 2(1) we had adopted the alternative procedure of giving effect to Community law by enactment in this country—whether enactment in the form of secondary legislation, as by Clause 2(2), or enactment by Act of Parliament—I submit there would be no need for Clause 3(1), or for the formal superimposition of the


jurisprudence of the Community upon the courts of this country.
Let me follow this through, before I comeback to the point that there always was, and still is, an alternative way of procedure. Let us suppose that effect were given to Community law by enactment. Let us suppose that effect is given to it by a regulation, as well it might be under Clause 2(2).Then, of course, that regulation would be part of the law of this country and Clause 3(1) would not bite upon it. It would not need to. The Court would have before it a Statutory Instrument which had been approved, if that were necessary, by this House.
It might however be alleged that the Statutory Instrument had failed to give full or due effect to the Community law. In that case the Community would challenge before the Court of Justice not the individual involved in proceedings in a court in this country, but the member State itself—Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and it would have to be decided whether Her Majesty's Government, by that enactment, had or had not given due effect to Community law, as they were obliged to do.
Thus by enactment in this country we would achieve two purposes. We would be giving effect, as we are required, to Community law; and we would also be ensuring that the subject in this country would only be bound by the law of this country, which, incidentally, would always be in his own language and would be drawn in the forms of the law of this country. He would be judged here in our courts in accordance with the law of this country and the interpretation of that law.
10.30 p.m.
That is the alternative. It is the alternative against which this Government deliberately decided when they drew the Bill in this way. So once again, now that we come to Clause 3 and the transfer of judicial sovereignty from this country, we discover that we are not confronted with something which is obligatory in the way in which we are doing it; we are instead confronted with something which the Government have chosen to do.
I noted with interest that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was at some pains yesterday to go back over

the expressions which fell from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the close of the debate on Second Reading, and I have again studied those expressions. There is no doubt of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House. He told us, and, I respectfully suggest, correctly, that the effect of Clause 2(1) could have been achieved by legislation. It is true that he argued that it would be inconvenient, but he admitted in so many words that there was an alternative way of giving effect in this country to the law of the Community—namely, by enactment, whether by primary legislation or by subordinate legislation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will recall that he himself on several occasions has been careful to avoid saying that Clause 2(1)—and we are really against considering the effect of Clause 2(1)—was the only way to do what the Government was required to do under the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession. Naturally, he told us it was in his opinion the best way to do it; and one can see—we have already seen—reasons for supposing that, from the point of view of the Executive, it might be the most convenient way. But he has been careful to say, and has been characteristically truthful in saying, that it was not the only way, that there was an alternative, but that this method was chosen as being, from the point of view of the Government, preferable.
So now we are confronted yet again with the consequences of the Government having chosen not to proceed by way of legislation, not to make the Community law expressly the law of this country in the way that the rest of the law of this country is made. That is why we have this transfer of jurisdiction and this imposition of Community jurisprudence, which is the effect of Clause 3 generally and in particular of this subsection.
When we address ourselves to the Amendment—to leave out subsection (1)—we are once more not asking that the Bill should be wrecked—the Amendment would not be in order if we were doing that. We are once more not seeking to violate or render inapplicable the Treaty of Accession. We have been saying that there was a different way in which the


purpose could have been achieved, which would have preserved not only the form, but much more than the form, of parliamentary control; and now, when we look at Clause 3, we realise also that it would have preserved the form, and more than the form, of the inviolability and independence of the courts of this country.
Once again the question before the Committee is not one which needs to divide those for or against joining this or any other Community. It will divide only those who are for or against doing the thing in a way which preserves to the maximum or which sacrifices to the maximum the constitutional procedures and rights which exist.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I wish to take up what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said and the comments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), which implied that the courts were in some way being lowered or depreciated by the Bill. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said that the courts, like Parliament, were being castrated. Whatever may be the case with Parliament, the reverse is the case with the courts. So far from being castrated, to use the hon. Member's elegant verb, the courts are to have an absolute bonanza. I would like to illustrate this with a few examples.
As hon. Members may know, hitherto the courts of this country have been under the strict rule of precedent. They are strictly ruled by the House of Lords and to a lesser extent by the Court of Appeal. Only recently my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, sitting in a judicial capacity, read a great lecture to the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning—much in our thoughts today—about the need for the Court of Appeal to observe the law as laid down by the House of Lords.
That illustrates the importance attached hitherto to the system of discipline in our judicial system. When we read Clause 3 (1) all is at large. The courts of first instance are to have a charter of liberty when considering matters of Community law. No longer will the fulminations of either my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor or of the

Master of the Rolls be enough to keep the judges of first instance in their place. It will be observed in the concluding words of the subsection that when considering matters of Community law they are to be determined
as such in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court.
Hon. Members may also know that this judicial discipline of ours is called by the lawyers the principle of stare decisis. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is not here to correct my pronunciation.
This subsection means that the strict rule of precedent and particularly the rule of hierarchical precedent by which decisions of superior courts rule those of lower courts is not observed on the Continent or by the Court at Luxembourg. Therefore when a humble county court judge or a humble puisne judge has to consider a matter of Community law, and they will have to do it increasingly I am glad to say, they will be able to snap their fingers in the faces of the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor—if I am right. Not only is the court of first instance to observe the Community law, but it is obliged to use it according to the principles laid down by the European Court.
Those principles include the principle that precedent is not binding. That is the principle on which the European Court proceeds; it is not bound by its own precedents, as with the Supreme Court in Washington and recently, though in a small and negligible and intermediate sense, by our own House of Lords—although nobody knows the limits of that great dash for freedom which it made about three years ago.
It is clear that in the European system under which our judges in future will operate the rule of precedent in Community law, although not outside it, does not apply. That is how the European Court works. Every court of first instance will be free to pick and choose between the decisions of its co-equals—the decisions of the House of Commons, the decisions of the directives, the decisions of the regulations, the decisions properly so-called of the Commission, the Council, the European Court and


such decisions of our own courts as it prefers.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is it any part of my hon. and learned Friend's case that this democratisation of the judicial system to which he refers is intended as, or should be regarded as, any form of compensation for the admitted sacrifice of political democracy which entry into the Community will involve?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: These matters are not as carefully judged and thought out as my right hon. and learned Friend might think. It is one of the by-products, to my mind one of the advantages, of the Bill that the court of first instance will have a much greater freedom than it has had previously to pick and choose between the different authorities which it will follow. It is obliged to interpret the European law, and is obliged to do so on European lines and on European principles. That being so, courts of first instance are not bound by precedent, as European courts and European law are not bound by precedent. I should like to know whether there is a fallacy in that argument; that is all I rise to inquire.
If there is a fallacy, I do not understand what it can be. If our judges of first instance do not refer the matter to the Court in Luxembourg—and I hope they will not do so too readily because the cost to the ordinary litigant of doing so will be very great—they themselves will be obliged to decide it, and they will be obliged to decide it in the way the European Court would decide it. That court would not observe precedent because the European courts do not observe precedent. I suggest that far from our courts being castrated, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said, they will have more virility than they have ever had in their lives.

Mr. Deakins: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome, which says that the permissive discretion of a court of first instance in this country to refer a matter to the European Court of Justice will depend on whether our court considers that
a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment".

If it does not consider it to be necessary, it is a comparatively unimportant point affecting the case before the court. If it has a bearing on the judgment, surely reference must be made under this part of Article 177.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not think there is any obligation to make a reference. I have the paragraph before me and I see that the provision is governed by the word "may". The court has discretion in deciding whether to refer the matter to Luxembourgh. I should hope that in the majority of cases it would regard any such reference which had to go to Luxembourg and then back again to the court of first instance as a very expensive and time-consuming operation. In this new dash for freedom, I should hope that our courts would have the robustness to decide for themselves as frequently as possible.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: While not wishing to pursue the question whether it amounts to castration, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that apparently it is the intention that courts of first instance shall recognise the primacy of Community law. I do not know whether that is really what the Government intend. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaks of the primacy of Community law. He also says that this Bill has not touched upon the sovereignty of Parliament. However, in that situation there is no free-for-all for the judges. There is no great open road to freedom at all. The door is locked to them in a very large part of their jurisdiction.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. But I rather doubt that. If one imagines a judge of first instance surrounded by all the documents—a Statute which may be said to be irreconcilable with some decision of the Council or Commission, a decision of our Court of Appeal, possibly a decision of a court of cassation in France—he would have far more freedom to pick and choose than he has at present in our municipal law.
As a result of this legislation, the judges will rule us far more than they have in the past. I am in favour of that, and I support the Bill for that reason.

Sir John Foster: I find some philosophical difficulty in my hon. and learned Friend's argument. It is rather like the Greek fallacy which says
The proposition on the other side of this piece of paper is untrue
and which says on the reverse side
The proposition on the other side of this piece of paper is true".
The subsection says that the English courts shall decide in accordance with the principle laid down by the relevant decision of the European Court. My hon. and learned Friend says that the principle laid down by the European Court is that there is no principle, because it is at large. My hon. and learned Friend's interpretation of that leads to one of these Greek fallacies.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I agree, and that gives the unfortunate judge who has to decide one way or the other a great deal of liberty. In that sort of situation, he has to put himself in the position of the European Court. He has to ask himself what would be the decision of six or 10 learned gentlemen drawn from different systems of law with different principles guiding them and different factors operating. That is very much at large. If a judge puts himself in that situation and tries to imagine himself in the position of the Luxembourg Court, he has a much wider option than when he has a precedent guiding him either from the Master of the Rolls or from my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
My purpose in rising was to inquire from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General whether it was true that when one of our judges was considering a problem of Community law he was not bound by precedent because he had to put himself in the position of those whom we broadly and perhaps wrongly call "the Continental lawyers". Continental lawyers do not observe the binding effect of precedent.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will do what he promised to do last night, which is to look into the question of what the judges are to do about the writs of execution, particularly as regards relief from the writs which are self-enforcing, those which are issued from Luxembourg or Brussels, and whether our judges can give relief on our usual grounds. Since last night I have looked up the articles, and it seems to me that

because of Article 192 they cannot give such relief. The last paragraph says that:
Enforcement may be suspended only by a decision of the Court of Justice".
That implies that our judges will be powerless to give such relief. If that is so, so be it. It is a pity. That seems to be one of the prices we must pay for observing our obligations under the treaty. It is not one of those features of the Bill where I think the Government are paying too much. If it is a price we must pay, so be it, but I should like to have the point cleared up when my hon. and learned Friend replies.

Mr. Clinton Davis: We have heard some very diverting propositions both from the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins) as to whether the courts are to be castrated or to have a bonanza. If either happens, it is the British subject who will have to pay, one way or the other.
What has also emerged is that it is abundantly clear that the concepts upon which continental law is based are totally different from our own, which are based upon precedent and the common law. Yet this is much in conflict with what we were told during that long debate before the Bill came before the House and during the debates on principle. We were told that the courts would not be fundamentally affected by adherence to the Rome Treaty. That is now shown to be palpably false.
It is of interest that the subsection relates to all legal proceedings. It will also involve criminal proceedings. I can envisage a substantial fraud case where issues affecting Community law may be involved, where expert evidence must be introduced, and the length of the case will be enormous. Many people now protest about the length of our criminal proceedings. There is the possibility that in such proceedings as I have described, which will be elongated, the matter will have to be referred by the criminal court of first instance to a foreign court for determination. That cannot be in the interests of natural justice.
I intervened in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to raise a point about the maxim in English law


that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is of fundamental importance in our criminal proceedings. There are about 46 volumes of Common Market legislation, and no doubt there will be many more. They are not to be subject to real scrutiny; Parliament will know very little about them. What is much more important is that the ordinary citizen of this country will find the whole proceedings totally unintelligible. Yet presumably the maxim will still apply. Is there to be any new defence available, in criminal proceedings in particular, of ignorance of the law in certain circumstances? It is impossible to expect the ordinary citizen to be familiar with the whole panoply of Common Market legislation. It is true that it is virtually impossible for him to be familiar with much of the legislation that exists in our ordinary law today. The situation will be exacerbated if this Bill becomes law.
It is extremely offensive, in a democratic society, to submit the citizens of the country to the effects of a code of law not only unknown and unchecked, but unintelligible, but that they will be individually affected has been clearly said by Mr. Gerhard Bebr, one of the legal advisers to the Communities, in an article he submitted to the Modern Law Review in September, 1971.
He said that the objectives, the powers and the institutions of the Community suggest already that there is hardly any basis for comparing the EEC Treaty with a traditional international treaty. Community law is, in a sense, an autonomous legal order to which not only member states, but individuals as well are subject.
I also recall that during a number of our debates we were told that it was not individuals, but corporate bodies and States only who are to be subject to these provisions. We know from a lawyer of long experience, whose opinion one must respect, that individuals are to be subject to this as well.
The municipal courts of the individual member States are already in some difficulty. We know that they are already having to apply Community law with increasing frequency and that considerable conflicts are arising. This is likely to be infinitely worse as the mass of legislation

increases. This relates, to conflicts not only with municipal law but with constitutional law. How are our own courts to resolve the conflicts?
We are given no guidance in this connection, and it is incumbent on the Solicitor-General to advise the Committee how the courts are to deal with these real difficulties which do not simply affect lawyers, because the law is not something which is totally insensitive or so I hope. It relates to individuals and to the whole democratic process, and if law is uncertain and indefinite, it is a serious blight on our democratic processes. It is easy for regulations from Brussels to conflict with our own municipal law. The Government offer absolutely no solution to this dilemma.
So far as the Government are concerned, the supremacy of Community law over municipal law is unlimited and absolute.
This is the question the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) posed: need this be so? Need such emphasis be given in this legislation? I think it need not.
The same author raises the proposition that in Holland a Dutch court could deprive an international treaty of its supremacy, whereas, in this legislation our courts could not.
On page 485 of the article, he says:
These provisions of the Dutch constitutional amendment may create the erroneous impression that the supremacy of an international treaty over Dutch law is unlimited and absolute. That is not so. According to Article 66, only such provisions of an international treaty prevail which are considered self-executing and it is a Dutch court which rules on this question. Interpreting the intention of a self-executing treaty provision restrictively, the Dutch court could deprive an international treaty of its supremacy, otherwise provided for by the constitution.
But there is no such provision, so far as I can see, in respect of our own courts, and presumably the Government will resist any Amendment to alter the position.
There is, therefore, a serious risk that our civil liberties will be eroded by this dangerous position. This has been spelled out in a case involving a title which I find difficult to pronounce, the International Handelsgesellschaft case. The author says that the uniform validity of Community law would be impaired if a


decision reviewing the validity of Acts of the Community institutions would apply norms or principles of municipal law. The validity of Community Acts may be reviewed in the light of Community law only. Consequently, reasoned the court, no provisions of municipal law, of whatever nature they may be, may prevail over Community law lest it be deprived of its character as Community law and its very legal foundation be in endangered. The validity of a Community Act or its application in a member State remains therefore—

It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to the Order of 2nd May.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

FINANCE

Resolved,

That charges to capital gains tax may be imposed by amending the law with respect to the application of section 57 of the Finance Act 1971 in cases where the consideration for a disposal is payable by instalments.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

DISABLED PERSONS (PAYMENT)

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: If an impartial observer were to examine our present system for compensating disablement, I think he would find it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the regulations still grossly over-emphasise the prerogatives of property against the rights of human beings for proper protection and recompense. What adds poignancy to this charge is the fact that this year the Industrial Injuries Fund, which is far and away the biggest source of disability awards, has a surplus of more than £360 million and is growing annually at a rate of about £10 million.
It is well recognised that the present criterion for the award of disability payment is not so much need as the fulfil-

ment of certain technical conditions of eligibility, and disability pensions are, of course, limited to conditions caused by way of industrial injury. Hence the con-genitally handicapped, the disabled housewife—most dramatically, terminal cases of cancer at home—and those injured by accident outside their place of work are at present excluded, and the attendance allowance as yet scarcely does much to alter the situation. Even the flat-rate invalidity pension is dependent on the payment of 156 weekly National Insurance contributions by an employed or self-employed person.
But it is not these omissions so much as the parsimonious interpretation of existing benefit regulations to which I want to draw attention. First leaving aside the war pension, proof of industrial causation is rigidly required for the payment of a disablement pension. Disablement that could well be, but cannot be indisputably proved to be, the consequence of a particular accident or disease is frequently not accepted as qualifying for a pension or a cash gratuity.
I quote here only two examples. The first, which comes from my constituency, concerns a miner who worked in the mines for 31 years and developed a condition known as nystagmus, that is, an involuntary twitching of the eyelids, due to working in poor light for a long time. It is accepted as prescribed disease 35. His general practitioner and a consultant ophthalmic surgeon both testified to his having a disability and confirmed that in their opinion it could not have been contracted other than through working in that employment. The medical board and the medical appeal tribunal accepted that he had nystagmus but refused to conceded that it was necessarily of the type associated with that past employment.
Perhaps an even better example of the rigidity and intransigence of the relevant boards in implementing the regulations was quoted yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) at column 1243 of the Official Report. He instanced a man who came to be afflicted with pneumoconiosis and the Pneumoconiosis Panel rejected his application. After he died an autopsy was carried out. The man was revealed to have been suffering from chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pneumoconiosis. It is not material to my case, though an interesting sidelight, that even at that


stage the Pneumoconiosis Panel still refused to accept the plain revelation of the pathologist's report.
The second stringency in recompensing disablement concerns those conditions arising from industrial processes rather than those caused by an accident. They qualify for a pension only if they fall within the list of 45 prescribed industrial diseases. These are accepted only where they can be attributed to an employment, according to Section 56 of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases Act, 1965, "with reasonable certainty", The almost perverse legalism lying behind that phrase and the almost positive aversion which it implies to meeting need per se is well revealed by the Minister's comment yesterday at column 1243, where he said:
we have to be careful that we do not prescribe something which does not fall within the terms of the Industrial Injuries Act."—[Official Report, 13th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1243.]
What a mistake that would be. The effect of this attitude is illustrated by the recently reported case of the contraction of chronic bronchitis and emphysema by electric arc welders. Though the General and Municipal Workers' Union claims that 40 per cent, of workers in this occupation suffer from this disease, the Department prevents their gaining any compensation. It regards this condition as not confined to this occupation. I refer to the Official Report, 23rd May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 331. This is despite the fact that in the test case put by the union, that of the 49-year-old non-smoking skilled electric arc welder named Sidney Cartwright, the judge ruled that his condition, which included siderosis from the iron particles in his lung, was in all probability due to the inhalation of nitrous gas before overhead exhausts were installed. I ask the Minister whether he can honestly say that he believes that in this case, and so many others like it, the spirit of the original 1948 legislation is being carried out. I do not believe he could say that.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that ill-health caused by industrial process is covered by the prescribed diseases legislation. It is not.
Let me quote just one more example of a worker disabled by process effects who cannot get compensation. A 69-year-old man, now partially deaf and

suffering from nervous debility, worked for two years in a cartridge factory where he had to endure the noise of hand-stamping of cartridges and the dropping of heavy crates. The National Insurance Commissioner—the case went that far—explicitly ruled in his case that even if he conclusively proved that his condition was due to the noise at his work, his claim would not be successful because he was injured by a repeated process, not by an accident at a particular time.
A third source of injustice in allocating disability awards arises when other conditions become superimposed over time and are treated as the operative factors to the neglect of the underlying causes.
I should like to cite another recently reported case where a man was struck by a falling steel barrel and obtained injury benefit for six months. During that time, because of the strain and anxiety of losing his job and fighting his employer for compensation—in vain, in fact—he had two heart attacks and contracted diabetes. The board ruled that his inability to work was due to these later conditions which were entirely unconnected with the accident. For this reason, disablement benefit was not granted.
More punitively still, it seems that such strictures are not infrequently exerted against the survivor. Death benefit, which involves a pension of up to £6·55 a week for widows, can often not be claimed because death cannot unequivocally be attributed to industrial injury or disease. Even the death of a 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis victim is frequently attributed to chronic bronchitis, brain haemorrhage or a heart condition, any of which may have arisen from breathing difficulties, a coughing fit, or something of that kind.
In the face of this meanness, masquerading behind legalisms and technicalities, I believe the overriding requirement clearly is that disability awards should be made according to need, not according to the time, place or circumstances of the cause. This would then automatically enable not only injured housewives and those handicapped at birth but those disabled through industrial processes to be eligible for benefit.
The desirability of this broad line of policy is, I am sure, widely recognised and accepted. But, short of these overriding changes, I believe several amendments can and should be made to the present system, and I should like to specify them.
First, much more generous disability pensions should be granted. From October this year the top 100 per cent. rate will be only £11·20 a week on a scale reducing to a mere £2·24 a week for 20 per cent. disablement. Such levels of recompense are surely unforgivably niggardly in a year in which the Industrial Injuries Fund has a surplus of £363,500,000 and is growing steadily at the rate of £6 million to £11 million a year. Yet still many workers die of occupational diseases virtually uncompensated. I quote again a case in my local paper of a man from Mossley, Lancashire, who had been a textile worker for 40 years and recently died from spinner's cancer when in receipt of a pension of 83p per week.
Secondly, more legal and financial assistance should be given to disabled persons for making claims and obtaining specialist representation. Independent medical consultation should be available to claimants on the extent and origin of their incapacity, and legal aid should, of course, be available before tribunals.
Thirdly, there are strong arguments in favour of allowing persons who settle for lump sum compensation under the old Workmen's Compensation Act to be brought within the scope of the Industrial Injuries Acts if their condition has since worsened. The size of the surplus in the Fund makes that a not unreasonable request.
Fourthly, much stronger pressure should be brought to bear on employers to prevent industrial disablement in the first place. This is obviously crucial. For example, in the construction industry the Chief Inspector of Factories stated in his 1969 Report that out of 234 fatal accidents there were breaches of the law by employers in 134 cases and in only five cases breaches of the law by the vicitims. The Chief Inspector concluded that
over 85 per cent. of all construction fatalities were preventable by reasonable practicable precautions.

Yet the average size of fines for offences is only £39.
I am aware that the Robens Committee is due to report very shortly on the whole future of safety legislation. But that does not detract from asking now for much more realistic penalties.
Another company, Goodyear, to quote a recently reported example in the papers which had been prosecuted in 1971 for not having machinery, including a conveyor belt, securely fastened, was last month fined a mere £100 after an employee had been sucked into a conveyor and crushed to death.
Such negligence—I am not suggesting that it is true of this company—can apparently even be deliberate, according to the quoted remark of a Sheffield general manager:
It is cheaper to kill a man a year than pay a safety officer. Besides, it keeps the men on their toes. A death in the works is worth more than all the propaganda you get from the experts.
It is to counter such attitudes that I believe that mandatory fines of up to £50,000 should, if necessary, be imposed by the courts in cases of proven negligence.
Fifth, the factory inspectorate, which at the moment is less than 700 strong, should clearly be substantially expanded. At present they can make only one visit every three or four years, given the number of factories in the country, and they do not invariably visit a factory even after a fatal accident or a serious maiming through negligence.
What I am asking is both moderate and practicable. Since the anomalies and inequities of the present system offend against all human sentiment and cry out for reform, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a constructive reply

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for having given me notice of a number of the fairly detailed points which he intended to raise. I will deal with as many as I can in the time available.
First, I do not at all agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the scheme is administered in a mean or parsimonious way. We can fairly say that we in this country have one of the


most comprehensive systems of cover for industrial injuries. I do not mean that it cannot be improved—of course it can—but the hon. Member was a little unfair about both the level of benefit and the spirit in which it is administered. I pay particular tribute to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, from which we have had much valuable advice over the years.
The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time saying that the scheme could do much more because of the surplus of £350 million or so. But this simply is not the case. This is in no way out of proportion to the income and outgo of the scheme, which is about £120 million a year. The surplus was built up in the early years to meet the emergent costs of disablement benefit as the number of long-term awards has built up over the years. But for a number of years now any annual increase in the fund has been less than the income from 1p a side on the contribution, so that any reduction in contributions would have meant a deficit.
So this scheme, like the National Insurance Scheme, is on a pay-as-you-go basis and any improvements in the benefits, such as the uprating which is to take place in October, or any extension of the area covered would mean an increase in contributions. There is no "fat" in the fund from which more money could be paid out.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the conditions to be satisfied before benefit can be paid are set out precisely in the Act and the regulations. Where the injury is caused by accident, that accident must arise out of and in the course of insurable employment if it is to be accepted as an industrial accident. This is the well-tried and recognised condition establishing the relationship with employment, and in most accident cases it is simple and straightforward to apply.
An injury may, however, develop over a long period, or the incidents may be so numerous and so close together in time as to form a continuous process. There may be no incident or limited series of definite incidents which can be accepted as constituting an industrial accident. It may then be more difficult to establish a connection between

a disability and a gradual process over time, and thence to accept attribution to employment. Therefore, special tests have been considered necessary which a condition due to process or disease must satisfy before it can be prescribed and attract benefit. The distinction between accident and process was considered and accepted as a valid one by the Beney Committee which reported in 1955.
The hon. Gentleman then said that the proof of industrial causation is too rigid. In fact, the whole scheme and the administration of the scheme leans over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. This is true of the Industrial Injuries Scheme as it is of other schemes, too. Where there is a balance of probabilities the intention of the scheme is that those probabilities should be decided in the favour of the claimant. For example, many unwitnessed accidents are accepted as industrial accidents, and much the same goes for the death benefit too. It is only necessary to show to the satisfaction of the determining authorities that on a balance of probabilities, and looking at the matter in a broad, commonsense way, death was materially accelerated by and, therefore, resulted from the injury.
The hon. Gentleman also made the point that the awards should be based on need. This is suggesting going back to something similar to the old workmen's compensation arrangements which existed before the war. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman would appear to be suggesting that, because the present system, both national insurance and industrial injuries, is based on benefit as of right under the conditions laid down in the scheme. I should have thought that that is a more satisfactory way than the suggestion the hon. Gentleman has made. I think it is generally regarded as much more satisfactory than a system which would almost certainly involve a great deal of litigation, such as that which existed under the old workmen's compensation scheme before the industrial injuries arrangements were introduced.
Some of the figures show that the present arrangements lean over backwards to try to assist a claimant, and that the benefit as of right provisions within the terms of the scheme laid down work fairly well on the whole. Perhaps I may


give the hon. Gentleman some figures which illustrate this fairly effectively.
In 1971, from nearly 300,000 disablement benefit examinations by medical boards—the initial adjudicating bodies—there were only 11,300 appeals on disablement questions to medical appeal tribunals. Of these appeals 37.7 per cent, were successful. In addition the Secretary of State referred 4,200 decisions of medical boards to medical appeal tribunals, because, for example, the assessment was thought to be too low or too high, and 31 per cent. of these references resulted in a favourable decision to the claimant. These figures do not indicate any substantial dissatisfaction with the awards.
I doubt whether changes are required in the provisions for legal assistance. The insurance officer, the legally qualified chairmen of tribunals, the commissioner and the Department all act impartially. For example, in many appeals to the commissioner on a point of law against the finding of a medical appeal tribunal the appellant will have found no point of law. However, it is the practice of the Department to ensure that any point of law that may assist the appellant is put forward and suggested for adoption by him. Therefore, I do not think that the changes the hon. Gentleman proposes are required.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned cases under the old workmen's compensation arrangements. I will look carefully at his detailed suggestions. There are special schemes, paid from the Industrial Injuries Fund, providing additional benefit to those receiving payments of workmen's compensation and also giving cover to those suffering from slowly developing diseases whose disablment arose, after 1948, too late to claim under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
The case of one further group of men injured after the Workmen's Compensa-

tion Acts were in force is under examination in consultation with the Trades Union Congress. It comprises those, known as "latents", who have continuing title under the Acts but who are not receiving compensation currently because they cannot establish loss of earnings under workmen's compensation rules.
We have no proposals in mind to extend the payment of benefit to persons who received lump sums in full and final settlement of their claims under those Acts. The vast majority of these relate to minor incidents. The nature of the settlements and lapse of time mean that essential evidence and facts are not available, and such an extension would open to controversy a wide range of lump sum settlements of this nature other than those under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
The hon. Gentleman referred finally to the Factory Inspectorate and the attitude of employers generally to accidents at work. As the hon. Gentleman said, a committee under Lord Robens is considering this matter. I think that in spite of his strictures the hon. Gentleman will accept that it would be unwise for the Government to formulate proposals until we receive the advice of this committee on safety and health at work which was appointed in May, 1970, and whose report is expected fairly soon. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when that report is received it will be considered in my Department and also in the Department of Employment, which is primarily concerned with the factory legislation.
The hon. Gentleman has raised many detailed points which I shall consider, but I hope he will feel that what I have been able to say in this brief debate has at any rate put some of the matters and some of his fairly harsh criticisms in perspective.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 14th June, 1972

[CAPTAIN WALTER ELLIOT in the chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members: 


Captain Walter Elliot (Chairman)


Cooke, Mr. Robert (Bristol, West).
Jopling, Mr. Michael (Westmorland).


Dormand, Mr. J. D. (Easington).
Loveridge, Mr. John (Hornchurch).


Evans, Mr. Fred (Caerphilly).
Mitchell, Mr. R. C. (Southampton, Itchen).


Grylls, Mr. Michael (Chertsey).


Hall-Davis, Mr. A. G. F. (Morecambe and Lonsdale)
Moyle, Mr. Roland (Lewisham, North).


Oakes, Mr. Gordon (Widnes).


Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract).
Price, Mr. David (Eastleigh).


Hayhoe, Mr. Barney (Heston and Isle-worth).
Smith, Mr. John (Lanarkshire, North)


Strauss, Mr. G. R. (Vauxhall).


Hiley, Mr. Joseph (Pudsey).
van Straubenzee, Mr. W. R. (Under Secretary of State for Education and Science).


Hill, Mr. John E. B. (Norfolk, South).


Hill, Mr. James (Southampton, Test).


Hughes, Mr Mark (Durham).




Miss A. Milner-Barry, Committee Clerk.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,
That if proceedings on the British Library Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. van Straubenzee.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the British Library Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure for me to commend this Bill to the Committee. In recent months a number of us on both sides of the Committee have been engaged to-

gether in legislation which is perhaps marginally more controversial that this Bill.
Therefore, it is pleasant to be handling a Bill of this nature. I shall deal with it reasonably shortly, but obviously the Committee will expect me to say something about its general background and its main provisions. If any major point is raised, I shall attempt to deal with it at the end.
The Bill's purpose is to give effect to the proposals announced by the Government in the White Paper published in January last year for the creation of the British Library. Members of the Committee will doubtless recall its main


features. They are, subject to the approval of the House, to create the British Library as the apex of this country's library system by bringing together into a single organisation the four existing institutions pre-eminent in their respective fields—the British Museum Library, which includes the National Reference Library of Science and Invention, the National Central Library, the National Lending Library for Science and Technology, and the British National Bibliography—and to carry out a massive programme of new building which is urgent and inescapable if the new institution is to be fittingly housed.
Some people feel that there have been unjustifiable delays in meeting the accommodation needs of the British Museum Library departments, but I hope that the Organising Committee, and this Committee, will look forward rather than back. The proposals in the White Paper accord with the main recommendations of the Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr. Dainton, as he then was, and they were widely welcomed in the world of libraries.
The Committee may like to have a brief account of the progress of the Organising Committee for the new library. Its principal tasks so far have been two, and they are closely related. The first is that of establishing the lines on which the principal functions of the new library—reference, lending and bibliographic services—and the staffs needed to run them can be most effectively organised for the future within a new unitary institution, from the standpoint of internal management and with full attention to the needs of the library's users.
The second task has been to provide the architects for the new buildings, particularly those which it is planned to erect in Bloomsbury, close by the British Museum, with advice on the library's requirements for accommodation of all kinds, and especially on the way in which the provision in the new buildings can take into account desirable changes in the way in which services and staff are organised.
I am glad to be able to report to the Committee that excellent progress has been made with what we would all understand are difficult but important tasks and the work is well up to schedule. I understand the first stage of

new buildings in Bloomsbury is intended for completion by 1979, so that the present National Reference Library of Science and Invention can be operational in new accommodation by that year. So far as the library's lending services at Boston Spa are concerned, construction has already begun of the new buildings which are needed to enable the facilities of the National Central Library to be transferred there, and this transfer is planned for the summer of 1973.
Bearing in mind the wide objectives with which I had started, I hope it will commend itself to the Committee that the Bill should be drawn so that the objectives of the library are described in wide-ranging terms. I hope it will be acceptable that the composition of the British Library Board, which has a very important role to play, can readily be varied if circumstances show the need for this, and that it should be given wide powers to conduct its operations as it thinks wisest. I emphasise that we are looking well into the future. The field of libraries is a rapidly expanding and changing one and our task is to provide legislation capable of responding to rapid change and development.
That is by way of background to the Bill. I shall now take the Committee briefly through the Bill.
Clause 1 aims to bring out the comprehensive coverage of the materials which the library will need to have to do its job. The Committee must not overlook the fact that library materials are now appearing in new forms, and that future ingenuity may well add to the list. That is why the Clause is drawn as it is.
Clause 1(3)(b) will be of interest to public and other libraries, though it will be for the board to decide in what directions the powers set out in it will be used. The Clause is indicative of the need for co-operation between the British Library and other libraries in meeting total requirements efficiently and economically.
As the White Paper indicates, the National Libraries of Scotland and of Wales and other important libraries will remain independent of the British Library, though undoubtedly there will be areas for fruitful co-operation between them.
It may be convenient if I link the board's powers of lending in Clause 1(4)


and the powers in paragraphs 11(1) and 11(3) of the Schedule. They are related to matters incidental to the board's role and to the acquisition and disposal of the property of the board. The board will need a substantial degree of independence in these matters. The needs of students and other users of the library must be borne in mind when items from the collections are lent and there must be restrictions on disposal of property vested in the board which are subject to trusts or conditions. I should like to think that the combined effect of the powers I have mentioned create balance, and that the balance in the drafting is just about right.
It may shorten discussion later if at this point I make reference to the absence of any reference in the Bill to the institutions other than the British Museum Library which are being incorporated in the new institution. The reason is that the trustees of both the National Central Library and the Council for the British National Bibliography already have powers which they can use to wind up their affairs and to transfer their assets to the British Library. No legislation is required, therefore, and the necessary winding-up arrangements are already in hand. For the same reason, there is no need for the Bill specifically to mention the incorporation of the National Lending Library at Boston Spa, which is directly administered by my Department.
Clause 2 deals with the very important matter of the composition of the British Library Board and with the provision of advisory councils for it or its Departments. The White Paper envisaged a board of up to 12 persons, including the chairman. The Committee will see that the Bill provides for a maximum of 14 and a minimum of nine. That was decided as a result of consultations with the Organising Committee. I hope that it will be acceptable that there is a degree of flexibility in the total number and that Clause 2(l)(a) gives additional flexibility as between the full-time and the part-time membership, bearing in mind that we are trying to look well ahead in the Bill.
There are limits to what we can do by way of looking into the future, but there seems to me to be likely to be two main phases in the responsibility of the board. For the first 10 or so years of

its life, I see it as being heavily preoccupied with its major programme of new building, with the problems associated with a scatter of accommodation, with developing an integrated operational organisation and with establishing close links with other elements in the country's library system, and, I hope, internationally also.
There may, however, be a change at the time when the board, not only has been able to get the library well-established, but is also in a position to match its integrated operations with integrated accommodation in its two centres in London and Yorkshire. I should like to think that the 1972 legislation—if the House agrees to it—will be flexible enough to be responsive to the need for change in the structure of the board should that be necessary to reflect its changed role.
The Committee will realise that the intention is to create a management board, not a trustee structure. It might like to know, since it has been the subject of comment, how the Government, after consultation with the Organising Committee, see the balance between full-time and part-time members in the early years of the library's existence and our thoughts on the question whether the first chairman should be full-time or part-time.
With all there is to be done in the initial stages, we think that the best arrangement is to provide for a responsibility for the execution of the board's policies shared between a chairman serving part-time and a full-time chief executive and deputy chairman. Three other full-time members would combine the dual role of sharing the responsibility for board policy and having charge, as executives responsible to the chief executive, of the three main operational areas of the library's services—Reference, Lending and Bibliographic Services. These have emerged from the Organising Committee's study of the pattern needed for the organisation of the principal functions of the institution. The fourth main area—administration, finance and other functions common to all parts of the library—would be the natural responsibility of the chief executive.
The part-time members—and paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 2(1) recognise the special position of King George


Ill's Library and the unique role which the British Museum's collections as a whole will play in the total collections in the board's charge—will have a function to perform, different, but of no less importance to the success of the library, of ensuring that the board's policies and operation are closely related to the needs of the library's users.
The intention of Clause 2(2) is to give the appointing Minister an indication of the types of experience on which to draw in making appointments to the board. It does not attempt to set out an exhaustive list. I gladly repeat the assurance given by my noble Friend the Paymaster-General in another place and, incidentally, mentioned in the White Paper, that three of the part-time members will be appointed after consultation respectively with the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for Scotland and for Wales. It is also the intention that the interests of literature and science, of commerce as well as industry, and of the patent community—an important community in this respect—will be taken into account in selecting members for the board or for the advisory councils.
Clause 3 deals with the transfer of the contents of the British Museum Library departments from the ownership of the Museum trustees to that of the British Library Board, and these provisions have been discussed with the trustees. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into detail, but I shall be happy to answer questions to the best of my ability at the end.
The Committee will realise that the provisions of Clause 3(6) are to provide interim arrangements to deal with the period of 12 years or so until all the new accommodation in Bloomsbury is ready and the board can transfer the collections from the existing buildings for which, of course, the trustees will retain responsibility.
I do not think there is any point in Clause 4 to which I need draw special attention. It is purely consequential in transferring to the board the copyright deposit provisions and for making the board an exempt charity.
In due time, if the Committee agrees to recommend the Second Reading, I shall in Committee be moving Amendments to insert Clause 5, which for purely procedural reasons was not

considered by another place. The words before us will, I hope, reflect up-to-date thinking in the appropriate relationship in financial matters between the Government, on the one hand, as the provider of grants, and the independent body, on the other, which will be receiving those grants.
It would be quite wrong not to allow the board to enjoy the maximum freedom over its internal affairs consistent with the broad objectives of Government policy, but it is reasonable that it acts in accordance with any directions which may be given to it by the Secretary of State for the time being over the use of moneys voted by Parliament, and there will be provisions enabling the Secretary of State to require payments into the Consolidated Fund of moneys received by the board for services provided.
Meanwhile, the Committee will note from the Explanatory Memorandum that we expect the total grant-in-aid from the Consolidated Fund to be about £6 million in 1973–74, rising to about £7 million in five years' time, this expenditure taking the place almost entirely of the present expenditure which is devoted to grants to the British Museum Library and the other libraries which will form the British Library.
The Committee knows that charges are already imposed for photocopying and loan services and we shall need to bear in mind the possibility of technological developments and demand for additional services—for example, the facsimile transmission of material, which will enable readers to use it at considerable cost to the library, unless a charge could be imposed.
I propose not to take the Committee through the Schedule except to make clear one point which may otherwise be the subject of misunderstanding. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a reduction of staff of the public service. This is an accurate statement of fact, but it does not mean that there will be a reduction of those engaged in the operation. It is a consequential result of the Bill. Since that has been the subject of some misunderstanding elsewhere, I make the point expressly.
Paragraph 13(1) of the Schedule gives expression to the intention of the White


Paper that the staff of the British Library will be employed on terms and conditions which, taken as a whole, will be no less favourable than those they have enjoyed in the four institutions from which they will have been transferred. I can give the assurance that the closest contacts have been established between the Organising Committee and the present staffs and that these will continue.
I hope that I have maintained the balance between not being unduly lengthy and not failing to do justice to this important matter. I should like to think that the establishment of the British Library brings to end a long period of uncertainty and will be a great benefit to the library services of this country. The Government intend to set up the board as soon as is practicable after the Royal Assent has been given. I hope that the Committee will feel able to agree that the Bill should have a Second Reading.

Mr. Roland Moyle: First, I should thank the Under-Secretary for his lucid exposition of the principles of the Bill. Perhaps the most important thing that I ought to say, in view of the fact that some of us are fresh from some vigorous jousting on the Museum and Galleries Admission Charges Bill, is that the Opposition welcome this Bill enthusiastically, and thus put the Under-Secretary out of any agony of suspense.
The Bill has a widespread parentage. It arises out of public outcry over the original proposals for the site in 1967 and informed public opinion has had its say. The experts were gathered under Dr. Dainton's Committee to have their say, and they produced a report which is substantially incorporated in the Bill. The Committee was set up by the Labour Government and it has fallen to the Conservative Government to give it legislative form and bring it to life.
We welcome the Bill for a number of reasons, some more important than others. One of the reasons is that it seems like an old-fashioned nationalisation Measure in that it sets up a "public authority", as the Government calls it. I should have called it a "public corporation" to take over these four bodies and weld them into one. We were pleased and happy that when the Government

saw the imaginative scheme worked out by Dr. Dainton, they quelled any cries of bureaucratic centralism which may have arisen half uttered from their breasts and did the reasonable and imaginative thing.
We are also pleased to see that the lending facilities of the library will be in the region of Boston Spa. We regard this as being an attractive feature of the scheme. It means that one of the more labour-intensive aspects of the library will be out in the regions, in Yorkshire, and will provide Yorkshire with a share in the centre of a national institution. We welcome it for this reason.
We welcome Clause 1(3)(b) which gives the British Library Board power to use its funds to develop in the long run regional libraries of science and technology. We are a little disappointed that the Government will not go ahead with it at the moment, but we realise that there are substantial problems. As the Under-Secretary has pointed out, the British Library Board will have a hefty task in the next few years. We do not want to quarrel with the Government's decision where they say in the White Paper on page 3, paragraph 6: 
It may be found that the considerable duplication of stocks implied in setting up regional libraries would be justified, but more time and experience are needed before deciding whether to embark on such an expensive policy.
We shall be vigilant to ensure that the Government are not faint-hearted in studying the problems and implications of regional libraries and, if the obstacles do not prove insuperable, in setting them up and creating them, for very much the same reasons as we welcome the creation of the lending facilities of the library at Boston Spa.
Above all, we welcome the Bill because action was urgently needed in respect of the British Museum library. I remember being told some years ago by my wife, who was doing research work in London at the time, that if one wanted to get any work done one had to keep clear of the British Museum library because it took so long, often a matter of hours, for books to be traced and brought to the light of day. I understand that the whole site is incredibly cramped, with insufficient staff to supervise the proper recording and registering of all the books and


publications that the museum has to handle, and no proper storage space so that many of the books and periodicals must be stowed away in warehouses scattered over London. The situation which pertains there is not one that a country which hopes to play a large part in the future of civilisation could regard with any degree of pride, and it was absolutely essential that something should be done.
I am very pleased that the Government have decided to adopt the imaginative Dainton scheme. That is an encouraging portent for the future. One might say that the Department of Education and Science has moved away from what one might regard as its "school milk" era and has decided to adopt a broad, imaginative approach to the problems of the future. At any rate, I live in hope, and I shall remain hopeful until I am given reason for disillusion.

Mr. John Smith: Look at the other side of the Committee. There is reason for disillusion there!

Mr. Moyle: No doubt my hon. Friend will make that point at some stage.
The idea of a British Library is essential in the remaining years of this century. There has been a rapid increase in human knowledge. Probably more human knowledge has been accumulated in the past 20 years than throughout the whole of human history before that. A very powerful organisation is required to accumulate this vast mass of knowledge and, having accumulated it, a very efficient and complex one is required to retrieve it when necessary.
I think that the British Library will give the country an organisation which will meet the requirements of the last quarter of this century and the early part of the next. This morning we are giving Britain an organisation which will meet the requirements of research workers and seekers after knowledge of all types. The Government were wise to draft the Bill sufficiently widely to cover knowledge in all its recorded forms. As the Under-Secretary said, ingenuity is continually creating new forms of recording human knowledge. I think that the Bill is so drafted as to allow the British Library to acquire all such knowledge in whatever form it presents

itself and to keep it for reference and study.
I am pleased also at the imaginative approach to the site which has been adopted—the idea that we should have a large site in the centre of London for the main institutions of the library. There is provision for the preservation of the historically and architecturally interesting buildings of the site, but there will be a comprehensive development with shops and houses as well. The main buildings will be in the centre of the capital, which I believe will lend attraction.
When it comes to the preservation of modern buildings, I think we have learned from the Barbican and other schemes that modern buildings can be enhanced by judicial preservation of the old and that old buildings can be offset attractively by a curtilage of new architecture. To a large extent, we are in the hands of our experts for the final outcome of the British Library site, but at least we, as politicians, can make sure that the scope for the experts to work is not cramped or limited by the powers we confer upon them for carrying out their task. I note with pleasure that Mr. Colin St. John Wilson has been appointed as the architect for the whole project.
A good Bill, perhaps particularly because it is a good Bill, presents a greater challenge to improve it. Therefore, we shall welcome a Committee stage to try to improve on this good Bill. We are not entirely happy with the idea that Members of Parliament cannot serve on the board. Obviously they cannot serve for remuneration on the board, but a Member of Parliament who is interested in the work of British libraries should not be barred from giving his advice and expertise to the board purely on the basis that he is a Member of Parliament. We shall probably want to look at the honoraria paid to board members, since both the Government and Opposition will want to attract the highest quality people to the board. Given the pressures of modern life, we may not be able to do so unless we are completely confident that such people can be protected from financial loss as a result of serving on the board.
There may be other points that we wish to make when we look at the Bill in


detail, but at this stage it only remains for me to wish the architect well in the task which he has undertaken and to assure the Under-Secretary that the Opposition intend to give the Bill an unimpeded Second Reading.

11.4 a.m.

Mr. David Price: I join the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) in his widespread congratulations to the many people and organisations who have played a major part in bringing this project to its present state. I congratulate particularly my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General. Of all the people involved, his energy and experience and, above all, his enthusiasm has been a determining factor. I say this because I have not always been entirely enthusiastic about everything that my right hon. Friend has done; no doubt he is the sort of man with whom one does not always agree in every respect. The balance is that he has the energy and determination to see projects such as this through to fulfilment, whereas lesser men sometimes lose heart along the line.
I wish to detain the Committee on two points, one minor and one substantial. The minor point is in Clause 2(1), dealing with the composition of the British Library Board. This matter was considered in some detail in another place. I merely observe that if certain categories of experience are to be listed in Clause 2(2), I regret the absence of any reference to science and technology. There was a discussion in the other place and the word "business" was deleted and the word "industry" introduced, but if these other areas of scholarship and experience are to be listed, I feel that science and technology should be added.
An alternative way to draft the Clause would be to list none of them and use a general word such as "scholarship", which I suggest would cover it all. Possibly my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give that suggestion some consideration and say something about it later.
My substantial point is that the British Library will be a great national library and it is important that we and the public should realise that it is national and not just a great library for the metropolis.

As the hon. Member for Lewisham, North said, with the lending services located at Boston Spa, it will be apparent that this is a national library and not just one for London. But it will be a library of last resort, and the Committee will be familiar with its three specific objectives laid down in paragraph 3 of the White Paper. I remind the Committee of them briefly. First:
The aim will be to provide as comprehensive a reference service of last resort as possible.
The second objective is to provide
an efficient central lending and photocopying service"—
and note these words—
in support of the other libraries and information systems of the country",
and, thirdly, to provide:
…central cataloguing and other bibliographic services…".
I believe that in this day and age, to allow the speed and efficiency with which the British Library can fulfil those three objectives, remembering that their principal customers will be other libraries and, secondly, individual scholars and readers, it is essential that they make more extensive use of automatic data processing—in other words, the computer. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether any provision has been made for the use of computers, both in planning the architecture and layout of the buildings, and in the financial provision for the construction. I realise that it takes a long time to introduce computers gradually over these three services, but I suggest that it would be a grave omission if provision were not made at this stage, though it would be churlish of me to press my hon. Friend or the Organising Committee to state specifically what systems they will be using five or 10 years hence.
The modern computer—particularly if there is a computer grid linking major libraries with the National Library—will enable one to deal not only more efficiently but, once the system is installed, much more cheaply with each item of information handled. I am sure that all hon. Members of the Committee have at some point seen a major computer information system at work. I am sure that any of the major computer manufacturers would be delighted to show this to any hon. Member.
I hope therefore that my hon. Friend, when he speaks again, will reassure me on this matter. The only reference to it which I found was tucked away in paragraph 19 of the White Paper, which said:
In addition it may be found necessary to invest in automatic data processing.
I do not like the words "it may be found". It is necessary.
It is by taking the lead in this sort of major data processing that I believe the Government and the public sector generally can play an enormous part in giving the British computer industry an opportunity to lead in this field. I believe that if in the next few years we could produce in this country a major computer grid system to fulfil the three objectives of this great British Library, we would have something which would be not only of inestimable value to the rest of the world but of great financial benefit to the British computer industry.

11.11 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I agree with the Bill. I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has said. On the question of computers, he has put his finger on something that seemed to be lacking in the White Paper, in which there is particular stress on the word "photocopying." Photocopying in the remaining years of this decade will be an almost archaic process. There will be no need to have papers photocopied. Computer systems already exist whereby information can be retrieved and transmitted instantly by television to output points, without the laborious business of photocopying.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in what he said about the provision for a computer at the start of the life of this library, with a forward-looking view as to its duties to other libraries, and to the provision of information for the public. When the Minister appoints the British Library Board I hope that he will bear in mind the views of the hon. Gentleman and of industry and science that at least one member, and preferably more than one, should have technological knowledge of computers; not only of their present capacity, but of what they may be able to do in the future in the supply and distribution of information.
The change of name is valuable. Britain has long needed a British library. The British Museum gives the wrong concept of a modern library. A library has been defined as a collection of books, and the title "British Museum" tends to give that image of the collection of things. A library today is really a storehouse of accessible information, and the change of name to the British National Library is a good one from the image point of view alone.
We tend to be full of Anglo-Saxon arrogance. This is not a British library—it is really an English library—because we have not integrated the Scottish and Welsh National Libraries, but there must be the closest cooperation between the national libraries of the three countries so that information from any one library is available to the others. In that way we would create a truly British library, and not merely an English one.
I regret much more than my hon. Friend does the fact that the Government are not pursuing the recommendation of the Dainton Committee for the establishment of a regional structure of libraries. In the White Paper the Minister points out the difficulties of this, not least the difficulty of expense, but when one considers the value that a library is to industry, to commerce, to learning and to the community as a whole, one realises that it is money well spent. The libraries in the regions should in some way be integrated into a national library. I hope that the Minister and the board will look to the regions for the rich material which they could provide for the setting up of such a library.
The British Library should be the apex of a comprehensive library system in this country. Subsection (3) integrates the libraries of this country with the new British Library, and it is important that it should. Over the decades there has been the feeling in the library world that the British Museum was apart from and out of the library structure of this country. It should not be. It should be at the apex of it.
Subsection (3) does not widen the imaginative possibilities of the integration of this country's excellent libraries with the British Library. It should be a two-way transaction. Information and advice should be able to be given from


the British Library to district libraries, to county libraries and university libraries, and vice versa. I stress most of all the point forcefully and clearly made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh that it is necessary, at the outset, for the national library to look closely at modern and future methods for the instant transmission of information. We have a chance to make this the leading library in the world.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. James Hill: We are congratulating ourselves and our right hon. Friends but the background to the setting up of this library is a disgrace. The new building on the Blooms-bury site was mooted 28 years ago and 21 years ago it was incorporated into the LCC Development Plan. It survived a public inquiry and was approved by the Minister of Housing 17 years ago. Architects were appointed 10 years ago and outline plans were accepted eight years ago. Six years ago, the Camden Council objected and, in October, 1967, the Socialist Government said that the project was off.
We have not a great deal on which to congratulate ourselves. We must now ensure that there are no further delays. I read in the White Paper that the building will take another 13 years to erect. What happens in the meantime, and what contingency plans have the libraries? In an article in the Guardian on 9th April, 1970, it was said that, from a sample, taken in 1968, of 1,595 readers who visited the British Museum, only 458 reported having received their book in half an hour, while 621 had to wait an hour for their book and 366 waited up to an hour and a half. In the summer of 1970, the secretary of the British Museum was warning overseas scholars that conditions that summer were likely to be still worse. What will they be like this summer?
I mention these points only because I think that the Government have at long last turned words into deeds, and welcome they are. I should like the Committee to emphasise the need for the greatest possible dispatch. We do not want to wait a single year more. We need confirmation from the Opposition that, no matter what political dangers lie

ahead, the British Library will be built on schedule.

Mr. Moyle: I am much encouraged by the thought that the fate of the British Library lies in our hands and not those of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Hill: I bear in mind every possible alternative, and that is one remote possibility.
In the selection of the persons to be appointed to the Board—and I see that we are going back to part-time members and I think that this may be the only way to get the cream, particularly where technology is concerned—I emphasise that we should not consider a self-perpetuating board in any form. I agree with the Opposition that there seems to be room on the board for a Member of Parliament. At a time like the present, when we are dealing with matters of such importance, a Member of Parliament, even if he could do no good, could certainly do no harm and might assist with solving problems and bring reality to the board.
I should like to think that the Committee will finish quickly and that we shall not waste even one more day.

11.20 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I warmly endorse the feeling of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) that the Committee should complete its business quickly. I believe that it will because there is general agreement and I hope that the Government will press on with the work involved in adopting the Bill as quickly as possible.
It is particularly pleasurable to be a member of this Committee, which is being led by the Under-Secretary for Education and Science, and being on this occasion able to agree with the policy which he is putting forward. I was rather surprised when I came in to find that the Under-Secretary was still wearing his battle-dress. I remember what happened on the last occasion when we sat together and he was embattled most of the time, fighting valiantly against the Opposition who had conclusive arguments to undermine his Bill. He did his best, by the plausible but quite inconclusive points which he made, to maintain the position of the Government. On this occasion we are, I think, all in


complete agreement and the atmosphere, instead of being militant as it was on that occasion, is one of general goodwill.
I should like to say something about the history of this matter, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill), because I was, to some extent, involved in this. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that the proposal to build the library on the site between Great Russell Street and Oxford Street had been generally accepted for about 20 to 30 years; for a long time the area had been frozen and nothing was allowed to be built on it because it was generally assumed that the library was to be built there. There were long delays, but everyone expected that.
Then, as the hon. Member said, in 1967, in a moment of aberration, the Labour Government said that because of housing needs of Camden Council, and for a number of other good reasons, the library could not be built on that site. That moment of aberration, which was quite incredible, was almost as serious and devastating as the aberration of the present Government and the Paymaster-General in bringing forward a Bill to tax visitors to art galleries and museums. At the time I expressed in the House of Commons, as did many of my colleagues, my strong disapproval of the Government's decision. Fortunately, although we were told by the Minister then in charge of the matter and by the Minister who followed him that this decision was irrevocable, such was the logic of the facts that before long the responsible Minister had the grace and courage to revoke that irrevocable decision. That was after the Dainton Committee, set up by the Minister, had reported along the lines which we all know.
We now have the happy outcome that not the British Museum Library but the British Library, which will incorporate the British Museum Library, will be built on this site and I, like others, hope that it will not be long before work starts and the library is completed.
There are a number of detailed points which one could raise and probably will in Committee. However, the general picture and the facts given to us show there is an overwhelming desire to give the Bill an early Second Reading, and I

am content to reserve my comments to a later stage.
Having read every word said about the Bill in the other place, both on Second Reading and in Committee stage, I am of the opinion that the arguments against improvement and alteration were gone over thoroughly. A number of important changes were made in the Bill as a result of these discussions and the Bill as presented to us today is in pretty good shape, with one or two exceptions. I do not think that much time will have to be spent in trying to alter the Bill, because there are only two or three Amendments of outstanding importance.
I warmly welcome the Bill, as does everyone else. I am anxious that this great venture shall be carried to fruition as quickly as possible. There is no doubt that when it is finished—and one assumes that the architecture will be appropriate to the purpose and spirit of the venture—the British Library will be a great addition to British culture and will probably be the greatest and finest library in the world.
I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing this matter forward. I only wish that the Paymaster-General, who, when he was Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum, fought hammer and tongs against the Government of the day when they refused to allow a national British Museum Library to be built on that site, had remained in that position so that he could have fought—as I am sure he would have done—with the same energy, skill and determination the present Government's proposals to make entrance taxes to the British Museum payable by all people, without allowing even one free day. If we had that support from the Chairman of the Trustees, with all the energy which he displayed in other matters, we would be much happier with the Government's record on the arts.
I warmly endorse the Bill and wish the Government success in carrying it through as speedily as possible.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: May I, too, warmly endorse the Bill, and ask one pertinent question? May we have an assurance from the Government that there is no intention, either now


or in future, of transferring the British Library to Brussels?

11.27 a.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: With your permission, Captain Elliot, and that of the Committee, may I reply briefly to what I think we would all agree has been a helpful, welcoming and constructive debate. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) for the way in which he welcomed the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. It is entirely appropriate and proper that it should be given an examination in Committee and when that time comes we shall want to look at the points hon. Members wish to examine more fully, including the question of whether Members of Parliament, in an unpaid capacity, can properly be members of the board. I am bound to say in passing that, if the Bill were to be amended, I can think of reasons more persuasive for adding hon. Members to the board than that adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill), which was that at least they could not do any harm.
I am grateful, too, for the kindly welcome of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). As the Committee knows, he not only has great expertise in these matters but he has been very much at the centre of this argument. Clearly it is a matter of considerable satisfaction to him that we are now at this stage. He was kind enough to make reference to my being in battle-dress. May I return the compliment by saying that one of the things that always sustained me throughout the discussions we had on another Bill was to look forward to the delightful tie he would be wearing the next day, and he invariably rose to the occasion, as indeed he has today.
I should like to take the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and reinforced by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). I think I can give the sort of assurance that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman would wish. Provision will certainly be made, both financially—which was a point particularly made by my hon. Friend—and in the planning of the new buildings, for

the provision of computer services. I can go a little further than that and say that the place of ADP in the British Library has been the subject of a special study which has been financed by my Department. The report of this study will be published before the end of the summer and I shall make sure that my hon. Friend has it drawn especially to his attention. The Organising Committee has already seen this report and has taken it into account in its present planning. I hope that that assurance will be of assistance to my hon. Friend. His point was important and essential, and I am grateful to him for making it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, was wise to make sure that not too much euphoria was engendered and he was also wise to remind us of the long way that we have come. I am not able to give an absolute assurance to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), but he can be fairly satisfied that there are no present intentions of creating the geographical changes that he so clearly dreads.
I hope that I have answered all the points that have been made. I end as I began by expressing appreciation for the general welcome that has been given to the Bill, because we are starting on a very important task.
May I now, on behalf of the Committee, express my grateful thanks to you, Captain Elliot? This has perhaps not been the most difficult Committee over which you have presided and, if the others over which you preside are as agreeable as this one has been, what I hope will be your long period of chairing Committees will be a very pleasant one.

Mr. Moyle: I should like to associate the Opposition wholeheartedly with those remarks.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the British Library Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Elliot, Captain Walter (Chairman)
Jopling, Mr.


Cooke, Mr. Robert
Loveridge, Mr.


Dormand, Mr.
Mitchell, Mr. R. C.


Evans, Mr. Fred
Moyle, Mr.


Grylls, Mr.
Oakes, Mr.


Hall-Davis, Mr.
Price, Mr. David


Harper, Mr.
Smith, Mr. John


Hayhoe, Mr.
Strauss, Mr.


Hiley, Mr.
van Straubenzee, Mr.


Hill, Mr. James

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 14th June, 1972

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members: 


Mr. John Brewis (Chairman)


Archer, Mr. Peter (Rowley Regis and Tipton)
Lyons, Mr. Edward (Bradford, East)



McMillan, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Atkinson, Mr. Norman (Tottenham)
Monks, Mrs. Connie (Chorley)


Bray, Mr. Ronald (Rossendale)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally (Gloucester)


Cormack, Mr. Patrick (Cannock)
Perry, Mr. Ernest G. (Battersea, South)


Dean, Mr. Paul (Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon (Kensington South)


Fortescue, Mr. Tim (Liverpool, Garston)
Stokes, Mr. John (Oldbury and Hales owen)


Fraser, Mr. John (Norwood)



Gourlay, Mr. Harry (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
Wainwright, Mr. Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Langford-Holt, Sir John (Shrewsbury)
White, Mr. Roger (Gravesend)


Luce, Mr. Richard (Arundel and Shore-ham)
Whitlock, Mr. William (Nottingham North)



Miss H. E. Taylor, Committee Clerk

CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,

That if the proceedings on the Children Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's Sitting the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Dean.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Children Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
The sole purpose of this little Bill is to prevent the minimum age at which schoolchildren may undertake part-time employment outside industry from going up from 13 to 14 in September. The Bill does not affect in any way the total pro-

hibition of the employment of children of compulsory school age in factories, workshops or mines. It is solely concerned with the sorts of jobs which children commonly do for brief periods before and after school, and for limited hours in the school holidays—for instance. the delivery of morning and evening newspapers. In doing these jobs they have to comply with a number of statutory restrictions, and they must also comply with local byelaws. I will not dwell on these restrictions and byelaws because this Bill does not affect their operation in any way. It is solely concerned with the statutory minimum age.
There has been since 1918 a provision, first in the Education Acts and then in the Children Acts, prescribing a minimum


age for all forms of employment not governed by a more stringent limit. Until 1944 this age was fixed at 12, but the Education Act, 1944, which provided that the school leaving age should be raised from 14 to 15 and eventually to 16, provided also that the minimum age for employment should be raised in parallel with any rise in the school leaving age, and so when the school leaving age was raised to 15 in 1947 the minimum age for employment automatically went up to 13. This year, on 1st September, when the school leaving age goes up to 16, the minimum age would, if nothing were done, rise again automatically to 14.
The previous Government clearly had doubts about whether this was right, because they announced early in 1970 that they would be undertaking a review of the whole of this branch of the law, with particular reference to the effects which raising the school leaving age would have on it. When we came into office we agreed that this was a useful exercise and decided that it should go ahead.
Accordingly, towards the end of 1970 a consultative document was issued to a wide range of representative bodies and everyone interested was invited to send in comments. In particular they were asked to express a view on whether or not the minimum age for employment ought to rise from 13 to 14 when the school leaving age was raised.
Overwhelmingly, the view of those consulted was that it would be a mistake to let this happen.
Let me say straight away that there were a few dissentients. For instance, the teachers' organisations were pretty evenly divided for and against the idea that the minimum age might be fixed at 13, and the T.U.C. was totally opposed to the idea, but I think I am being fair in saying that this opposition appeared to be directed to the employment of children in general and made no real case relating specifically to the position of children between the ages of 13 and 14.
By contrast, most of the organisations, 44 out of the 53 which commented, thought that the minimum age should remain fixed at 13 and they used some very strong arguments in favour of this.

Part-time work done by 13-year-olds outside school hours and in accordance with the law, for the last 25 years, seems not to have brought them any harm physically, morally or educationally. Indeed, there have been signs of a developing view that such work is commonly of positive value in encouraging independence, initiative and responsibility. Attitudes towards children's part-time jobs have become more flexible over the years, and children themselves are generally recognised to be maturing progressively earlier. Holiday jobs in particular are regarded in many parts of the country as a desirable remedy for lack of spare time interests among 13-year-olds. The Government found the arguments in favour of retaining a minimum age of 13 convincing.
That is the background to this small Bill. We have also announced our intention to introduce legislation to improve and standardise the regulatory framework for administering this branch of the law, in particular the substitution of regulations for the present control by local byelaws which give rise to differing practices in different parts of the country, but that is a bigger issue and must wait till time can be found for it, whereas the question of the minimum age must be dealt with now. I accordingly ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill ought to be read a Second time.

10.37 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I agree with the reasons of the Under-Secretary of State for putting this Bill forward. I made inquiries of the Inner London Education Authority. So far as I can see, there is no evidence of abuse, and no reason why the status quo should not be maintained. I think there is some concern among teachers that children sometimes come to school tired because they are doing work outside school hours, but I gather that the real cause of that is working in a family business—for example, serving in a sweet shop or working on a stall owned by the parents. Whether one alters the law or not, it is extremely difficult to eradicate any abuse there might be there. Generally speaking I agree that there is no abuse.
I agree that work which, under the law, children are permitted to do. makes for independence and responsibility. To


some extent I am prejudiced. I did a paper round from the time I was 12 on wards, and I was a pheasant plucker—

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: A what?

Mr. Fraser: —in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams). My own experience is that it leads to a good deal of independence. One learns to manage money at an early age.
To deny them these activities would be a blow to many children who remain

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE: 


Brewis, Mr. (Chairman)
Monks, Mrs.


Bray, Mr.
Perry, Mr. Ernest G.


Dean, Mr.
Rhys Williams, Sir B.


Fortescue, Mr.
Stokes, Mr.


Fraser, Mr. John
White, Mr. Roger


Gourlay, Mr.
Whitlock, Mr.


McMillan, Mr. Tom

on at school voluntarily. Since there is no abuse, and some evidence that there is positive value in the work the children do, we make no opposition to the Bill. Indeed, we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Children Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.